Highway Infrastructure
Stakeholders' Views on Time to Conduct Environmental Reviews of Highway Projects
Gao ID: GAO-03-534 May 23, 2003
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.
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.
GAO-03-534, Highway Infrastructure: Stakeholders' Views on Time to Conduct Environmental Reviews of Highway Projects
This is the accessible text file for GAO report number GAO-03-534
entitled 'Highway Infrastructure: Stakeholders' Views on Time to
Conduct Environmental Reviews of Highway Projects' which was released
on June 23, 2003.
This text file was formatted by the U.S. General Accounting Office
(GAO) to be accessible to users with visual impairments, as part of a
longer term project to improve GAO products' accessibility. Every
attempt has been made to maintain the structural and data integrity of
the original printed product. Accessibility features, such as text
descriptions of tables, consecutively numbered footnotes placed at the
end of the file, and the text of agency comment letters, are provided
but may not exactly duplicate the presentation or format of the printed
version. The portable document format (PDF) file is an exact electronic
replica of the printed version. We welcome your feedback. Please E-mail
your comments regarding the contents or accessibility features of this
document to Webmaster@gao.gov.
This is a work of the U.S. government and is not subject to copyright
protection in the United States. It may be reproduced and distributed
in its entirety without further permission from GAO. Because this work
may contain copyrighted images or other material, permission from the
copyright holder may be necessary if you wish to reproduce this
material separately.
Report to the Chairman, Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure,
House of Representatives:
May 2003:
Highway Infrastructure:
Stakeholders' Views on Time to Conduct Environmental Reviews of Highway
Projects:
GAO-03-534:
GAO Highlights:
Highlights of GAO-03-534, a report to the Chairman, House Committee on
Transportation and Infrastructure
Why GAO Did This Study:
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.
What GAO Found:
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.
www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-03-534.
To view the full product, including the scope and methodology, click
on the link above. For more information, contact Katherine Siggerud at
(202) 512-2834 or siggerudk@gao.gov.
[End of section]
Letter:
Results in Brief:
Background:
Environmental Reviews Become More Complex the Greater the Expected
Impact on the Environment:
Stakeholders' Views Differed on Which Aspects Frequently Add Undue Time
to Environmental Reviews:
Agency Comments and Our Evaluation:
Appendixes:
Appendix I: Scope and Methodology:
Appendix II: Environmental Reviews of Projects in Maryland and North
Carolina Requiring an Environmental Impact Statement:
Appendix III: Aspects Identified by Stakeholders as Unduly Adding Time
to Environmental Reviews:
Tables:
Table 1: Attributes of Categorical Exclusions and Environmental
Assessments for Federally Funded Highway Projects:
Table 2: Aspects Identified by a Majority of Environmental
Stakeholders:
Table 3: Aspects Identified by a Majority of Transportation Improvement
Stakeholders:
Table 4: Organizations Contacted:
Table 5: Frequency of Occurrences of Aspects That Unduly Add Time to
the Environmental Review, as Identified by Stakeholders, by Rating and
Type of Stakeholder:
Figures:
Figure 1: Key Activities under Different Types of Environmental
Review:
Figure 2: Stakeholders' Views on Aspects That Frequently Add Undue Time
to Environmental Review:
Figure 3: Activities Involved in Completing Environmental Reviews of
Projects in Maryland and North Carolina Requiring Environmental Impact
Statements:
FHWA: Federal Highway Administration:
NEPA: National Environmental Policy Act:
Letter May 23, 2003:
The Honorable Don Young
Chairman,
Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure
House of Representatives:
Dear Mr. Chairman:
In order to meet the mobility needs of the United States, the federal
government has had a longtime commitment to helping fund needed
maintenance and expansion of the nation's road network--from interstate
highways to rural roads--in an environmentally sound manner. Given the
importance of transportation to the nation's economy, mobility, and
security and the need to improve the nation's roads to meet these
needs, many transportation improvement stakeholders--such as the
Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), state departments of
transportation, and others--have said that completing a federally
funded highway project takes too long, and that the most time consuming
aspect involves environmental review.[Footnote 1] Transportation
improvement stakeholders acknowledge that environmental reviews result
in better project decisions, but say that reaching decisions is
difficult and time consuming.[Footnote 2] The Transportation Equity Act
for the 21st Century, enacted in 1998, contained provisions designed to
streamline environmental reviews. As the reauthorization of this act
approaches, the Congress may again consider measures for reducing the
time it takes to complete a federally funded highway project so that
transportation benefits are realized sooner.
You requested that we (1) describe the activities involved in the
environmental review of federally funded highway projects and (2)
report on stakeholders' views on which aspects of these environmental
reviews, if any, unduly add time to gaining environmental approval. To
carry out this work, we reviewed laws and documents related to
environmental review. We asked officials from FHWA and the departments
of transportation from Maryland and North Carolina to identify the
activities involved in environmental review and to identify federal,
state, and local agencies that routinely participate in reviews of
federally funded highway projects.[Footnote 3] To obtain stakeholders'
views on aspects that add undue time--more time than they view as
necessary--to environmental reviews, we asked officials from federal
and state agencies with responsibilities relating to the construction
of federally funded roads, transportation professional organizations,
historic preservation organizations, and environmental organizations
to identify laws, behaviors, resource issues, or project management
approaches, if any, that unduly add time to environmental review. We
asked these officials to identify other stakeholders with expertise in
such reviews and asked those individuals to identify aspects that they
felt add undue time. Overall, 39 stakeholders identified 43 aspects
they have encountered during environmental reviews that they felt add
undue time to these reviews. We then asked these stakeholders to rate
each aspect on how frequently, if at all, they occur. Twenty-eight
officials representing different interests provided these ratings (of
these 28, 16 stakeholders had primary transportation improvement
responsibilities or interests, and 12 stakeholders had primary
environmental responsibilities or interests). The approach we used
makes two contributions. First, it captures the views of a wide range
of stakeholders that are identified by their peers as knowledgeable.
Second, it provides a systematic assessment of the perceived frequency
of the aspects that knowledgeable stakeholders indicated add undue time
to environmental reviews. We did not attempt to corroborate whether or
not particular aspects actually occur or the reasons why stakeholders
rated individual aspects as occurring more or less frequently. In
addition, because of the relatively small number of stakeholders who
rated approaches, we did not extrapolate our results more broadly. (See
app. I for additional details on our scope and methodology.):
Results in Brief:
Environmental review activities typically consist of (1) identifying
and assessing the environmental impacts of projects, evaluating
alternatives, gaining input or approvals from FHWA, federal and state
agencies with environmental responsibilities (resource agencies), and
the public and (2) obtaining environmental permits. The activities
become more complex if significant environmental impacts are
anticipated. (See fig. 1.) FHWA estimates that:
* Approximately 91 percent of federally funded highway projects
(representing about 76 percent of the $17.6 billion in federal funding
distributed to states for highway projects in fiscal year 2001) have
minimal environmental impacts, and therefore receive "categorical
exclusions," qualifying them for limited environmental review. These
projects are limited in scope--and some are so routine (such as
installation of traffic signals) as to be pre approved by FHWA--and
seldom add new miles of road to the road system, according to FHWA. For
projects that qualify for a categorical exclusion, state departments of
transportation need only identify environmental features, sufficiently
establish that environmental impacts are minor, obtain approval for
projects in some circumstances, and address known and foreseeable
public and agency concerns. While there is no standard method for
computing the length of time for environmental review, environmental
review activities for these projects have been estimated to take an
average of 6 to 8 months to complete, according to FHWA, and could take
as long as an average of 22 months to complete, according to a report
prepared for the American Association of State Highway and
Transportation Officials.
* Approximately 6 percent of federally funded highway projects
(representing about 15 percent of the $17.6 billion in federal funding
distributed to states for highway projects in fiscal year 2001) receive
a more extensive environmental review when it is initially unclear
whether significant environmental impacts may occur (called an
environmental assessment). Projects that qualify for environmental
assessments do not typically add new miles of road to the road system
according to FHWA. For these projects, state departments of
transportation conduct additional review activities, which include (1)
evaluating the environmental impacts of one or more alternatives to the
proposed project, (2) consulting with the public and affected federal
and state resource agencies, and (3) obtaining FHWA approval. While
there is no standard method for measuring length of time for
environmental review, environmental review activities for these
projects have been estimated to take an average of 14 to 18 months to
complete, according to FHWA, and could take as long as an average of 41
months to complete, according to a report prepared for the American
Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials.
* About 3 percent of federally funded highway projects (representing
about 9 percent of the $17.6 billion in federal funding distributed to
states for highway projects in fiscal year 2001) are likely to have
significant environmental impacts. For these projects, state
departments of transportation conduct the same types of additional
activities as they do for environmental assessments, but on a more
comprehensive basis, resulting in an environmental impact statement.
For example, state departments of transportation evaluate all
reasonable alternatives (rather than evaluating one or more
alternatives as is done for environmental assessments) and, in Maryland
and North Carolina, gain concurrence from affected federal and state
resource agencies (rather than consulting with them). Other states may
interact with resource agencies differently. Environmental review
activities for these projects take an average of 5 years to complete,
according to FHWA. This duration is measured using formal FHWA decision
points. States, such as Maryland and North Carolina, may conduct some
environmental review activities before or after these decision points,
such as early identification of expected impacts and obtaining permits
from federal agencies with responsibilities for such things as water
quality and wetlands that extend this duration.
Figure 1: Key Activities under Different Types of Environmental Review:
[See PDF for image]
[A] For an environmental assessment, states must evaluate one or more
alternatives, whereas for environmental impact statements, states must
evaluate all reasonable alternatives.
[End of figure]
Transportation improvement and environmental stakeholders differed in
their views of which of the 43 aspects they identified as frequently
adding undue time to conducting environmental reviews. In no case did a
majority of transportation improvement and a majority of environmental
stakeholders agree. (See fig. 2.) A majority of environmental
stakeholders, such as resource agencies, state historic preservation
agencies, and environmental advocacy organizations, told us that undue
time is added to environmental reviews because state departments of
transportation do not consider environmental and historic preservation
impacts early enough (7 of 10 of these stakeholders responding or 70
percent), and they do not include important stakeholders early enough
(7 of 11 stakeholders responding or 64 percent). In contrast,
transportation improvement stakeholders, such as state departments of
transportation, FHWA division offices, and transportation advocacy
organizations, typically did not identify these aspects as adding undue
time. A majority of transportation improvement stakeholders told us
that a lack of sufficient staff at state departments of transportation
and federal resource agencies (11 of 16 responding or 69 percent),
meeting the stringent statutory requirements for historic preservation
projects on public lands ("section 4(f) requirements;" 9 of 16 of these
stakeholders or 56 percent) and obtaining permits for projects on
wetlands (9 of 16 stakeholders or 56 percent) frequently added undue
time to environmental reviews. Environmental stakeholders typically did
not identify these aspects as frequently adding undue time. While
stakeholders had identified these aspects as adding time to
environmental review, generally they could not estimate how much time
these aspects added.
Figure 2: Stakeholders' Views on Aspects That Frequently Add Undue Time
to Environmental Review:
[See PDF for image]
Note: Not all stakeholders rated each aspect. At least 26 stakeholders
(93 percent) rated each of the 5 aspects shown in this figure.
[End of figure]
The Department of Transportation responded that it had no comments on a
draft of this report. Maryland offered several technical comments,
which we have incorporated into this report. The Department of Interior
and North Carolina did not provide a response to our request for
comments on our report draft.
Background:
Federally funded highway projects vary in size, from new lane striping
or installing traffic signals to resurfacing an existing road or
building a new road or interchange. Of the federally funded highway
projects in 2000 that took place on approximately 27,000 miles of road
(latest data available), about 26,000 miles (96 percent) involved
either the addition of capacity, preservation, or improvements (such as
widening lanes, resurfacing, and rehabilitating roadways) and the
remaining 1,000 miles (4 percent) involved new road construction
projects. For fiscal year 2003, FHWA expects to fund about $20 billion
for highway infrastructure improvements and projects designed to
relieve congestion.
Regardless of their size and scope, federally funded highway projects
are typically completed in four phases:
* Planning: State and local planning organizations and state
departments of transportation assess a project's purpose and need and
consider its need in relation to other potential highway projects.
* Preliminary design and environmental review: State departments of
transportation identify project cost, level of service, and
construction location; identify the effect, if any, of the proposed
project and alternatives on the environment; and select the preferred
alternative.
* Final design and right-of-way acquisition: State departments of
transportation finalize design plans, acquire property, and relocate
utilities.
* Construction: State departments of transportation award construction
contracts, oversee construction, and accept the completed project.
Local, state, and federal governments all have a role in the planning,
designing, and construction of federally financed highway projects.
Local governments carry out many transportation planning functions,
such as scheduling improvements and maintenance for local streets and
roads. State departments of transportation are typically the focal
point for transportation project planning and construction and are
responsible for setting the transportation goals for the state,
planning safe and efficient transportation, designing most projects,
identifying and mitigating 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.[Footnote 4] The
construction of highway projects using federal funds can be complicated
and time consuming because state departments of transportation must
adhere to a number of federal laws pertaining to transportation, the
environment, and historic preservation and involve multiple
stakeholders representing all levels of government and the public; and
for some controversial projects, this could involve litigation.
As a condition of receiving federal funds for highway projects, state
departments of transportation must comply with the National
Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA), which requires that federal
agencies consider the potential impacts on environmental resources when
considering approval of a proposed action. FHWA is responsible for
ensuring that state departments of transportation identify, assess,
and, if necessary, mitigate impacts to the natural and human (e.g.,
health) environment and historic properties that may result from the
construction of a highway project. In this regard, state departments of
transportation involve federal agencies with environmental
responsibilities (called resource agencies), such as the Army Corps of
Engineers, Fish and Wildlife Service, Environmental Protection Agency,
and Advisory Council on Historic Preservation, in addition to FHWA and
state resource agencies when assessing the potential impacts of a
highway project in order to comply with NEPA and other federal and
state environmental requirements. Along with NEPA, state departments of
transportation must comply with other federal statutes that may apply
to a highway project, including:
* The Clean Water Act of 1977. The Clean Water Act of 1977 was designed
to restore and maintain the chemical, physical, and biological
integrity of the nation's waters through the prevention and elimination
of pollution. Any project, including the construction of a highway
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),[Footnote 5] was designed to preserve
publicly owned natural resources, such as parklands, recreation areas,
waterfowl and wildlife refuges, and significant historic sites.
Publicly owned lands may be used for federal highways only if there is
no prudent and feasible alternative to using that land; and the program
or project includes all possible planning to minimize harm to the park,
recreation area, wildlife and waterfowl refuge, or historic site from
the use. Each highway proposal developed by the state departments of
transportation must include avoidance and mitigation alternatives for
publicly owned lands that may be affected by the project. The
Departments of the Interior, Agriculture, and Housing and Urban
Development and state or local agencies have jurisdiction over natural
resources. State historic preservation offices and the Advisory Council
on Historic Preservation have jurisdiction over historic sites.
* The National Historic Preservation Act. Section 106 of the National
Historic Preservation Act requires that federal agencies consider the
effect that a project may have on a property (e.g., districts, sites,
buildings, structures, and objects) that is included in, or eligible
for inclusion in, the National Register of Historic Places.
* The Endangered Species Act of 1973. Section 7 of the Endangered
Species Act requires federal agencies to ensure that actions they
authorize, fund, or carry out are not likely to jeopardize the
continued existence of threatened or endangered species (including
fish, wildlife, and plants facing extinction) or result in the
destruction or adverse modification of critical habitat for these
species. In some cases, FHWA and state departments of transportation
work with the Fish and Wildlife Service, National Marine Fisheries
Service, and state resource agencies to ensure compliance with the act.
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.[Footnote 6] More extensive and structured environmental review
is required from FHWA for projects in which significant environmental
impacts are anticipated. This report describes environmental review
activities that states carry out to meet NEPA and other federal
environmental laws. States may carry out other environmental review
activities to meet state environmental requirements.
Projects with Minimal or Initially Unclear Environmental Impacts
Require Limited Environmental Review:
A highway project that is expected to have minimal environmental
impacts may qualify for limited federal environmental review (called a
categorical exclusion) under FHWA regulations implementing
NEPA.[Footnote 7] These projects are limited in scope--and some are so
routine (such as installation of traffic signals) as to be preapproved
by FHWA--and seldom add new miles of road to the road system. According
to FHWA, approximately 91 percent of approximately 31,000 federally
funded highway projects (representing
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.[Footnote 8] FHWA officials reported that it takes
even less time, sometimes as little as several days, to complete
categorical exclusions for projects that FHWA has preapproved for
limited environmental review (for example, landscaping or installation
of road signs). In a survey conducted for the American Association of
State Highway and Transportation Officials in 2000, state
transportation officials estimated that it took an average of 8 months
to complete the activities involved in environmental review of
categorical exclusion projects that they had classified as not
delayed.[Footnote 9] However, these state transportation officials also
reported that, for projects they selected for the survey, it took an
average of 22 months to complete activities involved in environmental
review for categorical exclusion projects that they had identified as
delayed. There is no standard method for measuring length of time for
environmental review.
Some of the projects that qualify for a categorical exclusion are
considered by FHWA to be routine--with little or no environmental
impact such as bus and rail car rehabilitation, construction of bike
paths, landscaping, installation of traffic signals, ride-sharing
activities, or improvements to existing rest areas--and have been
preapproved by FHWA for limited environmental review. For preapproved
projects, state department of transportation need only to sufficiently
establish that there are no significant impacts. State departments of
transportation do not need to identify mitigation measures, address
public and agency concerns, or gain 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.):
Table 1: Attributes of Categorical Exclusions and Environmental
Assessments for Federally Funded Highway Projects:
Activity: Identify environmental features; Categorical exclusion:
Identify environment features that may require additional environmental
review; Environmental assessment: Identify environment features that
may require additional environmental review.
Activity: Evaluate alternatives; Categorical exclusion: Not required;
Environmental assessment: Consideration of alternatives is required and
must include the impact of not building the project, but need not
evaluate all reasonable alternatives.
Activity: Assess impacts; Categorical exclusion: Projects that involve
no construction or limited construction may automatically qualify for
limited environmental review; for other projects, the level of analysis
should be sufficient to clearly establish that impacts are minor;
Environmental assessment: For each alternative considered, determine
the severity of impacts and any mitigation to reduce or eliminate
unavoidable impacts, but need only address those features that have a
reasonable possibility for significant impacts.
Activity: Involve public; Categorical exclusion: Where adverse impacts
are likely to occur, public concerns should be addressed;
Environmental assessment: Environmental assessments do not need to be
circulated for comment, but must be made available for public
inspection and invite comments from the public.
Activity: Obtain FHWA approval; Categorical exclusion: Not required for
most categorical exclusion projects. However, for unusual
circumstances, including significant impacts or substantial
controversy, FHWA approval is needed to determine whether the
classification is proper; Environmental assessment: FHWA must approve
the environmental assessment before it is made available to the public.
FHWA will either find that the project has no significant impact on the
environment or that the impact is significant and an environmental
impact statement must be prepared.
Activity: Consult with resource agencies; Categorical exclusion: Where
adverse impacts are likely to occur, resource agency concerns should be
addressed; Environmental assessment: Obtain feedback from resource
agencies on the scope of project, which aspects of the project have the
potential for environmental impact, identify alternatives, and measures
to mitigate.
Activity: Obtain permits, if needed; Categorical exclusion: Required;
Environmental assessment: Required.
Source: GAO analysis of FHWA regulations and technical guidance on
preparing environmental documents.
[End of table]
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.[Footnote 10]
For projects that will likely require an environmental assessment, such
as road widening or interchange construction projects, the state
department of transportation, in consultation with FHWA, must conduct
more extensive environmental review activities than are required for
projects that receive a categorical exclusion, commensurate with the
potential for significant environmental impact. For an environmental
assessment, the state department of transportation must (1) identify
environmental features that will be affected by the proposed project;
(2) evaluate one or more alternatives (but need not evaluate all
reasonable alternatives); (3) assess impacts to the environment caused
by the project or any of its alternatives and determine measures to
mitigate unavoidable environmental impacts; and (4) invite comments and
obtain feedback from the public and interested federal, state, and
local agencies. Additionally, states must obtain permits if required by
other environmental laws. FHWA must approve the environmental
assessment and it must be made available for public inspection. If FHWA
determines that no significant environmental impacts have been
identified, then it will issue a finding that there is no significant
impact. If at any point during the assessment, FHWA determines that the
project is likely to have a significant impact on the environment, then
an environmental impact statement will be required.
Significant Expected Environmental Impacts Require Substantial
Environmental Review:
NEPA requires federal agencies to prepare an environmental impact
statement for all actions (including federally funded highway projects)
that are likely to significantly affect the environment. An
environmental impact statement is a public document that discusses the
purpose of and need for the project, alternatives to the project, the
affected environment, the impacts of the alternatives to the affected
environment and public and agency comments received. While the
requirements for the information included in an environmental impact
statement are consistent across states, the steps taken in the
environmental review of projects requiring an environmental impact
statement are not the same in all states, and there exists no common
model among states for undertaking the review 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.[Footnote 11] While FHWA
reports that the average time to complete an environmental review for
these projects decreased by about 8 months between 1999 and 2001, it
nevertheless still takes approximately twice as long to complete
environmental review as it did in the 1970s.[Footnote 12] A report
prepared for FHWA stated that for projects constructed in the last 30
years, environmental review for projects requiring an environmental
impact statement accounted for 3.6 years, or approximately 28 percent
of the overall time for project completion.[Footnote 13]
In this section of the report, we describe the steps that two states,
Maryland and North Carolina, typically take in identifying and
assessing significant environmental impacts and gaining concurrence for
major transportation projects. (See app. II for a flow chart depicting
these activities.) These two state departments of transportation
typically carry 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.[Footnote
14]
Developing an understanding of expected environmental impacts. In this
phase, the Maryland and North Carolina departments of transportation
develop the scope and purpose of and need for the proposed
transportation project. To determine the potential for environmental
impacts, the state department of transportation incorporates existing
environmental information and feedback from stakeholders about the
project that may have been obtained through the development of the
state's transportation improvement plan.[Footnote 15] In addition,
Maryland and North Carolina departments of transportation identify
preliminary information on environmental features and resources
including wetlands, floodplains, historic sites, parklands, and
endangered species, as well as the area to be affected by the proposed
project. FHWA notifies the public through the Federal Register that
detailed environmental review is needed for the proposed highway
project (called a notice of intent). In addition, Maryland and North
Carolina departments of transportation invite local officials, federal,
state, and local agencies with environmental responsibilities, and the
public at large to discuss the purpose and need, the proposed scope,
environmental features identified, and substantial issues related to
the project. In addition to environmental review activities required by
NEPA, permits or consultation required by other environmental laws may
be needed (e.g., coastal 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.[Footnote 16] For
each alternative, state departments of transportation must identify the
environment that will be affected. Maryland and North Carolina
departments of transportation then obtain feedback on the alternatives
they have developed from the public and from federal, state, and local
agencies that have environmental responsibilities. Maryland and North
Carolina state departments of transportation evaluate comments from the
public and agencies and select a subset of alternatives for more
detailed study. For alternatives selected for detailed study, Maryland
and North Carolina state departments of transportation conduct detailed
engineering and environmental analyses of the impacts to natural,
socioeconomic, and cultural resources, including historic resources and
endangered species, and begin identifying measures to avoid, minimize,
or mitigate impacts. The last activity in identifying alternatives and
assessing environmental impacts is to invite the public, local
officials, and federal, state, and local agencies with environmental
responsibilities to discuss the rationale and issues related to the
subset of alternatives selected. For projects in Maryland or North
Carolina that require a permit under section 404 of the Clean Water
Act, the state department of transportation will also 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.[Footnote 17] After Maryland and North
Carolina state departments of transportation select the preferred
alternative, they develop additional avoidance and mitigation efforts,
if needed. Finally, Maryland and North Carolina state departments of
transportation will obtain feedback from the public and agencies on its
selection of the preferred alternative and address any concerns in the
final environmental impact statement. For projects in Maryland or North
Carolina that require a permit under section 404 of the Clean Water
Act, the state department of transportation will also normally obtain
concurrence on the preferred alternative from the Army Corps of
Engineers, the Environmental Protection Agency, the Fish and Wildlife
Service, and FHWA. Other states may not obtain concurrence. In
addition, the state department of transportation may also obtain
concurrence from the National Park Service, the Coast Guard, the Forest
Service, and/or the 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).[Footnote 18]
In addition to the activities described above, state departments of
transportation may need to undertake additional activities to consult
with or obtain permits or approvals from federal, state, and local
agencies before they can begin construction when a project may impact
coastal resources, air quality, wetlands, historic and cultural
resources, floodplains, ecosystems, national park lands, and endangered
species, among others in order to complete environmental review.
Finally, the environmental review process may have to be reopened in
situations such as when a project does not move forward because of
funding shortages and stakeholders believe that possible environmental
impacts have changed and in cases of successful lawsuits involving
environmental issues associated with the project. Only after lawsuits,
funding, or other environmental issues have been resolved will Maryland
and North Carolina state departments of transportation typically
allocate funding to begin construction.
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.[Footnote 19] (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.[Footnote 20] An official with the Council
on Environmental Quality, which oversees federal agency implementation
of the environmental impact assessments, stated that when environmental
activities related to NEPA are not considered during the planning phase
of a highway project, agreements made during the planning phase must be
revisited once a NEPA review starts, thus unduly adding time to
environmental reviews. In contrast, 12 percent of transportation
improvement stakeholders (2 of 16) cited this aspect as occurring
frequently.
* Important stakeholders not included early. Sixty-four percent of the
environmental stakeholders (7 of 11) who provided a rating for this
aspect told us that undue time is frequently added to environmental
reviews because state departments of transportation generally do not
include important stakeholders early in the environmental review. For
example, a state historic preservation officer said that the state
historic preservation office often was involved too late in the
environmental review, leading to time delays on the project. The state
department of transportation had spent time and money developing
projects prior to allowing the state historical preservation office to
review project plans. When the state historical preservation office had
a concern with a project, the state department had to change or
redesign its plans causing cost increases and time delays. In contrast,
19 percent of the transportation improvement stakeholders (3 of 16)
cited this aspect as frequently adding undue time to reviews.
Table 2: Aspects Identified by a Majority of Environmental
Stakeholders:
Aspect cited by stakeholders: State departments of transportation do
not consider environmental and historic impacts early enough in the
environmental review; Percent of stakeholders rating aspect as
occurring frequently (number of stakeholders in parentheses):
Environmental stakeholders: 70 (7 of 10); Percent of stakeholders
rating aspect as occurring frequently (number of stakeholders in
parentheses): Transportation improvement stakeholders: 12 (2 of 16);
Percent of stakeholders rating aspect as occurring frequently (number
of stakeholders in parentheses): All stakeholders: 35 (9 of 26).
Aspect cited by stakeholders: State departments of transportation do
not include important stakeholders early in the environmental review;
Percent of stakeholders rating aspect as occurring frequently (number
of stakeholders in parentheses): Environmental stakeholders: 64 (7
of 11); Percent of stakeholders rating aspect as occurring frequently
(number of stakeholders in parentheses): Transportation improvement
stakeholders: 19 (3 of 16); Percent of stakeholders rating aspect as
occurring frequently (number of stakeholders in parentheses): All
stakeholders: 37 (10 of 27).
Source: GAO analysis of responses from 28 stakeholders.
Note: Includes only those aspects identified by a majority of the
environmental stakeholders as occurring frequently. Percentages are
based on the number of stakeholders rating each aspect.
[End of table]
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.[Footnote 21]
* Section 4(f) historic preservation requirement considered burdensome.
Fifty-six percent of the transportation improvement stakeholders (9 of
16) told us that section 4(f) adds undue time to environmental reviews
because it is inflexible and, therefore, burdensome to comply with.
Section 4(f) prohibits the Department of Transportation from approving
any highway project that uses, among other things, publicly owned land
of an historic site of national, state, or local significance unless it
finds that (1) there is no prudent and feasible alternative that avoids
such resources or causes less harm to them and (2) the project includes
all possible planning to minimize harm to those resources. In April
2003, we reported that many stakeholders consider these reviews as
burdensome and inflexible and that alternative approaches could protect
historic properties and take less time to reach resolution.[Footnote
22] In that report, a large majority of the stakeholders we contacted
indicated that historic property protections under section 106 of the
National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (which requires that
projects subject to federal agency jurisdiction or licensing consider
the effects on any properties included in, or eligible for inclusion
in, the National Register of Historic Places) offered a flexible
mediation process that brings all parties into discussion and allowed
for more productive outcomes that preserve the goals of the
transportation project, while creating meaningful protections of
historic properties. In contrast, 30 percent of the environmental
stakeholders (3 of 10) who provided a rating for this aspect cited it
as occurring frequently, resulting in undue time being added to
environmental reviews.
* Obtaining wetlands permits considered time consuming. Fifty-six
percent of the transportation improvement stakeholders (9 of 16) told
us that section 404 of the Clean Water Act, which requires that
projects receive a permit from the Army Corps of Engineers if water
impacts exist, frequently adds undue time to environmental reviews.
These stakeholders described a variety of issues, including that
section 404 adds undue time because the Corps requires extensive
alternative analysis, even for minor projects, to demonstrate that
there is no practicable alternative to building on wetlands. None of
the environmental stakeholders rated this aspect as occurring
frequently in adding undue time to environmental reviews.
Table 3: Aspects Identified by a Majority of Transportation Improvement
Stakeholders:
Aspect cited by stakeholders: State departments of transportation and
federal resource agencies lack sufficient staff to handle their
responsibilities in a timely manner; Percent of stakeholders rating
aspect as occurring frequently (number of stakeholders in parentheses):
Transportation improvement stakeholders: 69 (11 of 16); Percent of
stakeholders rating aspect as occurring frequently (number of
stakeholders in parentheses): Environmental stakeholders: 50 (5 of
10); Percent of stakeholders rating aspect as occurring frequently
(number of stakeholders in parentheses): : All stakeholders: 62 (16
of 26).
Aspect cited by stakeholders: The section 4(f) requirement that the
state department of transportation prove there is no prudent and
feasible alternative is burdensome; Percent of stakeholders rating
aspect as occurring frequently (number of stakeholders in parentheses):
Transportation improvement stakeholders: 56 (9 of 16); Percent of
stakeholders rating aspect as occurring frequently (number of
stakeholders in parentheses): Environmental stakeholders: 30(3 of
10); Percent of stakeholders rating aspect as occurring frequently
(number of stakeholders in parentheses): : All stakeholders: 46(12 of
26).
Aspect cited by stakeholders: Section 404 causes delays since it values
water resources over other resources leading state departments of
transportation to complete time-consuming analysis; Percent of
stakeholders rating aspect as occurring frequently (number of
stakeholders in parentheses): Transportation improvement stakeholders:
56 (9 of 16); Percent of stakeholders rating aspect as occurring
frequently (number of stakeholders in parentheses): Environmental
stakeholders: 0 (0 of 10); Percent of stakeholders rating aspect as
occurring frequently (number of stakeholders in parentheses): : All
stakeholders: 35(9 of 26).
Source: GAO analysis of responses from 28 stakeholders.
Note: Includes only those aspects identified by a majority of the
transportation improvement stakeholders as occurring frequently.
[End of table]
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.
Sincerely yours,
Katherine Siggerud
Acting Director,
Physical Infrastructure Issues:
Signed by Katherine Siggerud:
[End of section]
Appendixes:
Appendix I: 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.
Table 4: Organizations Contacted:
Organizations: Advisory Council on Historic Preservation.
Organizations: American Association of State Highway and Transportation
Officials.
Organizations: American Highway Users Alliance.
Organizations: American Road and Transportation Builders Association.
Organizations: American Society of Civil Engineers.
Organizations: ARCADIS.
Organizations: Association of Metropolitan Planning Organizations.
Organizations: Binghamton Metropolitan Transportation Study.
Organizations: California Department of Transportation.
Organizations: Colorado Department of Transportation.
Organizations: Connecticut Department of Transportation.
Organizations: Conservation Law Foundation.
Organizations: Council for Environmental Quality.
Organizations: Defenders of Wildlife.
Organizations: Denver Regional Council of Governments.
Organizations: East-West Gateway Coordinating Council.
Organizations: Endangered Species Coalition.
Organizations: Environmental Defense.
Organizations: Federal Highway Administration - Connecticut Division.
Organizations: Federal Highway Administration - Texas Division.
Organizations: Federal Highway Administration - Virginia Division.
Organizations: Florida Department of Transportation, Environmental
Management Office.
Organizations: Indiana Department of Natural Resources.
Organizations: Institute of Transportation Engineers.
Organizations: Kentucky State Historical Preservation Office.
Organizations: Kentucky Transportation Cabinet[A].
Organizations: Louisiana Department of Transportation and Development,
Environmental Section.
Organizations: Maryland State Highway Administration, Project Planning
Division.
Organizations: Metroplan.
Organizations: National Coalition to Defend NEPA.
Organizations: National Conference of State Historic Preservation
Officers.
Organizations: Natural Resources Defense Council.
Organizations: National Trust for Historic Preservation.
Organizations: New Hampshire Department of Transportation,
Environmental Bureau.
Organizations: North Carolina Department of Transportation, Planning
and Environmental Office.
Organizations: Ohio Department of Transportation, Office of
Environmental Services.
Organizations: Oregon Department of Transportation, Environmental
Services Section.
Organizations: Parsons Brinckerhoff.
Organizations: Puget Sound Regional Council.
Organizations: R.J. Behar & Company, Inc.
Organizations: South Carolina Department of Transportation.
Organizations: Surface Transportation Policy Project.
Organizations: Texas Department of Transportation, Environmental
Affairs Division.
Organizations: U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, New Orleans District.
Organizations: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.
Organizations: U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Division of Federal
Program Activities.
Organizations: U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Pennsylvania Ecological
Services Field Office.
Organizations: U.S. Institute for Environmental Conflict Resolution.
Organizations: Vermont Agency of Transportation, Technical Service
Unit.
Organizations: Vermont Division for Historic Preservation.
Organizations: Washington State Department of Transportation.
Source: GAO.
[A] The official from the Kentucky Transportation Cabinet participated
as part of a group of officials from the American Association of State
Highway and Transportation Officials in the semi-structured interview
to identify aspects and individually in rating the frequency of
aspects.
[End of table]
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.[Footnote 23] 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.
[End of section]
Appendix II: 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.[Footnote 24] 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.
Figure 3: Activities Involved in Completing Environmental Reviews of
Projects in Maryland and North Carolina Requiring Environmental Impact
Statements:
[See PDF for image]
Note: Activities not related to environmental review were compressed
and can take a significant amount of time. According to FHWA, it
typically takes between 9 to 19 years to plan, gain approval for, and
construct a new, major federally funded highway project that has
significant environmental impacts.
[End of figure]
[End of section]
Appendix III: 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.):
Table 5: Frequency of Occurrences of Aspects That Unduly Add Time to
the Environmental Review, as Identified by Stakeholders, by Rating and
Type of Stakeholder:
Aspects identified by stakeholders:
State departments of transportation and federal resource agencies lack
sufficient staff to handle their responsibilities in a timely manner;
Number of stakeholders primarily affiliated with environmental and
historic preservation issues[A] indicating that aspect occurs: More
than half the time: 5; Number of stakeholders primarily affiliated with
environmental and historic preservation issues[A] indicating that
aspect occurs: About half the time: 1; Number of stakeholders
primarily affiliated with environmental and historic preservation
issues[A] indicating that aspect occurs: Less than half the time or
never: 3; Number of stakeholders primarily affiliated with
environmental and historic preservation issues[A] indicating that
aspect occurs: Did not know/not relevant: 1; Number of
stakeholders primarily affiliated with transportation improvement
issues[B] indicating that aspect occurs: More than half the time: 11;
Number of stakeholders primarily affiliated with transportation
improvement issues[B] indicating that aspect occurs: About half the
time: 3; Number of stakeholders primarily affiliated with
transportation improvement issues[B] indicating that aspect occurs:
Less than half the time or never: 2; Number of stakeholders primarily
affiliated with transportation improvement issues[B] indicating that
aspect occurs: Did not know/not relevant: 0; Total: 26.
The section 4(f) requirement that the state departments of
transportation prove there is no prudent and feasible alternative is
burdensome to a state department of transportation; Number of
stakeholders primarily affiliated with environmental and historic
preservation issues[A] indicating that aspect occurs: More than half
the time: 3; Number of stakeholders primarily affiliated with
environmental and historic preservation issues[A] indicating that
aspect occurs: About half the time: 0; Number of stakeholders
primarily affiliated with environmental and historic preservation
issues[A] indicating that aspect occurs: Less than half the time or
never: 6; Number of stakeholders primarily affiliated with
environmental and historic preservation issues[A] indicating that
aspect occurs: Did not know/not relevant: 1; Number of
stakeholders primarily affiliated with transportation improvement
issues[B] indicating that aspect occurs: More than half the time: 9;
Number of stakeholders primarily affiliated with transportation
improvement issues[B] indicating that aspect occurs: About half the
time: 1; Number of stakeholders primarily affiliated with
transportation improvement issues[B] indicating that aspect occurs:
Less than half the time or never: 6; Number of stakeholders primarily
affiliated with transportation improvement issues[B] indicating that
aspect occurs: Did not know/not relevant: 0; Total: 26.
State departments of transportation go to great lengths to avoid a
project on public lands because they regard section 4(f) as too
difficult to accommodate; Number of stakeholders primarily affiliated
with environmental and historic preservation issues[A] indicating that
aspect occurs: More than half the time: 4; Number of stakeholders
primarily affiliated with environmental and historic preservation
issues[A] indicating that aspect occurs: About half the time: 0;
Number of stakeholders primarily affiliated with environmental and
historic preservation issues[A] indicating that aspect occurs: Less
than half the time or never: 4; Number of stakeholders primarily
affiliated with environmental and historic preservation issues[A]
indicating that aspect occurs: Did not know/not relevant: 2;
Number of stakeholders primarily affiliated with
transportation improvement issues[B] indicating that aspect occurs:
More than half the time: 8; Number of stakeholders primarily affiliated
with transportation improvement issues[B] indicating that aspect
occurs: About half the time: 2; Number of stakeholders primarily
affiliated with transportation improvement issues[B] indicating that
aspect occurs: Less than half the time or never: 6; Number of
stakeholders primarily affiliated with transportation improvement
issues[B] indicating that aspect occurs: Did not know/not relevant:
0; Total: 26.
National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 and federal and state
environmental and historic preservation laws are not administered
concurrently; Number of stakeholders primarily affiliated with
environmental and historic preservation issues[A] indicating that
aspect occurs: More than half the time: 4; Number of stakeholders
primarily affiliated with environmental and historic preservation
issues[A] indicating that aspect occurs: About half the time: 1;
Number of stakeholders primarily affiliated with environmental and
historic preservation issues[A] indicating that aspect occurs: Less
than half the time or never: 5; Number of stakeholders primarily
affiliated with environmental and historic preservation issues[A]
indicating that aspect occurs: Did not know/not relevant: 0;
Number of stakeholders primarily affiliated with
transportation improvement issues[B] indicating that aspect occurs:
More than half the time: 7; Number of stakeholders primarily affiliated
with transportation improvement issues[B] indicating that aspect
occurs: About half the time: 3; Number of stakeholders primarily
affiliated with transportation improvement issues[B] indicating that
aspect occurs: Less than half the time or never: 5; Number of
stakeholders primarily affiliated with transportation improvement
issues[B] indicating that aspect occurs: Did not know/not relevant:
1; Total: 26.
State departments of transportation lack the ability to absorb budget
increases from the Transportation Equity Act for the 21[ST] Century;
Number of stakeholders primarily affiliated with environmental and
historic preservation issues[A] indicating that aspect occurs: More
than half the time: 3; Number of stakeholders primarily affiliated with
environmental and historic preservation issues[A] indicating that
aspect occurs: About half the time: 0; Number of stakeholders
primarily affiliated with environmental and historic preservation
issues[A] indicating that aspect occurs: Less than half the time or
never: 2; Number of stakeholders primarily affiliated with
environmental and historic preservation issues[A] indicating that
aspect occurs: Did not know/not relevant: 5; Number of
stakeholders primarily affiliated with transportation improvement
issues[B] indicating that aspect occurs: More than half the time: 8;
Number of stakeholders primarily affiliated with transportation
improvement issues[B] indicating that aspect occurs: About half the
time: 3; Number of stakeholders primarily affiliated with
transportation improvement issues[B] indicating that aspect occurs:
Less than half the time or never: 4; Number of stakeholders primarily
affiliated with transportation improvement issues[B] indicating that
aspect occurs: Did not know/not relevant: 1; Total: 26.
FHWA has changed its role from being a "leader" to being a
"facilitator."; Number of stakeholders primarily affiliated with
environmental and historic preservation issues[A] indicating that
aspect occurs: More than half the time: 2; Number of stakeholders
primarily affiliated with environmental and historic preservation
issues[A] indicating that aspect occurs: About half the time: 1;
Number of stakeholders primarily affiliated with environmental and
historic preservation issues[A] indicating that aspect occurs: Less
than half the time or never: 4; Number of stakeholders primarily
affiliated with environmental and historic preservation issues[A]
indicating that aspect occurs: Did not know/not relevant: 3;
Number of stakeholders primarily affiliated with
transportation improvement issues[B] indicating that aspect occurs:
More than half the time: 8; Number of stakeholders primarily affiliated
with transportation improvement issues[B] indicating that aspect
occurs: About half the time: 2; Number of stakeholders primarily
affiliated with transportation improvement issues[B] indicating that
aspect occurs: Less than half the time or never: 6; Number of
stakeholders primarily affiliated with transportation improvement
issues[B] indicating that aspect occurs: Did not know/not relevant:
0; Total: 26.
Section 4(f) standards do not associate requirements with the level of
impact a project has on a historic resource; Number of stakeholders
primarily affiliated with environmental and historic preservation
issues[A] indicating that aspect occurs: More than half the time: 2;
Number of stakeholders primarily affiliated with environmental and
historic preservation issues[A] indicating that aspect occurs: About
half the time: 1; Number of stakeholders primarily affiliated with
environmental and historic preservation issues[A] indicating that
aspect occurs: Less than half the time or never: 5; Number of
stakeholders primarily affiliated with environmental and historic
preservation issues[A] indicating that aspect occurs: Did not know/
not relevant: 2; Number of stakeholders primarily affiliated
with transportation improvement issues[B] indicating that aspect
occurs: More than half the time: 8; Number of stakeholders primarily
affiliated with transportation improvement issues[B] indicating that
aspect occurs: About half the time: 3; Number of stakeholders
primarily affiliated with transportation improvement issues[B]
indicating that aspect occurs: Less than half the time or never: 5;
Number of stakeholders primarily affiliated with transportation
improvement issues[B] indicating that aspect occurs: Did not know/
not relevant: 0; Total: 26.
State departments of transportation do not include important
stakeholders early in the environmental review; Number of stakeholders
primarily affiliated with environmental and historic preservation
issues[A] indicating that aspect occurs: More than half the time: 7;
Number of stakeholders primarily affiliated with environmental and
historic preservation issues[A] indicating that aspect occurs: About
half the time: 1; Number of stakeholders primarily affiliated with
environmental and historic preservation issues[A] indicating that
aspect occurs: Less than half the time or never: 3; Number of
stakeholders primarily affiliated with environmental and historic
preservation issues[A] indicating that aspect occurs: Did not know/
not relevant: 0; Number of stakeholders primarily affiliated
with transportation improvement issues[B] indicating that aspect
occurs: More than half the time: 3; Number of stakeholders primarily
affiliated with transportation improvement issues[B] indicating that
aspect occurs: About half the time: 2; Number of stakeholders
primarily affiliated with transportation improvement issues[B]
indicating that aspect occurs: Less than half the time or never: 11;
Number of stakeholders primarily affiliated with transportation
improvement issues[B] indicating that aspect occurs: Did not know/
not relevant: 0; Total: 27.
State historical preservation offices are not able to complete surveys
of state historic resources and/or maintain database of historic
properties due to resource constraints; Number of stakeholders
primarily affiliated with environmental and historic preservation
issues[A] indicating that aspect occurs: More than half the time: 4;
Number of stakeholders primarily affiliated with environmental and
historic preservation issues[A] indicating that aspect occurs: About
half the time: 2; Number of stakeholders primarily affiliated with
environmental and historic preservation issues[A] indicating that
aspect occurs: Less than half the time or never: 2; Number of
stakeholders primarily affiliated with environmental and historic
preservation issues[A] indicating that aspect occurs: Did not know/
not relevant: 3; Number of stakeholders primarily affiliated
with transportation improvement issues[B] indicating that aspect
occurs: More than half the time: 6; Number of stakeholders primarily
affiliated with transportation improvement issues[B] indicating that
aspect occurs: About half the time: 1; Number of stakeholders
primarily affiliated with transportation improvement issues[B]
indicating that aspect occurs: Less than half the time or never: 6;
Number of stakeholders primarily affiliated with transportation
improvement issues[B] indicating that aspect occurs: Did not know/
not relevant: 3; Total: 27.
State departments of transportation do not consider environmental and
historic impacts early enough in the environmental review; Number of
stakeholders primarily affiliated with environmental and historic
preservation issues[A] indicating that aspect occurs: More than half
the time: 7; Number of stakeholders primarily affiliated with
environmental and historic preservation issues[A] indicating that
aspect occurs: About half the time: 0; Number of stakeholders
primarily affiliated with environmental and historic preservation
issues[A] indicating that aspect occurs: Less than half the time or
never: 3; Number of stakeholders primarily affiliated with
environmental and historic preservation issues[A] indicating that
aspect occurs: Did not know/not relevant: 0; Number of
stakeholders primarily affiliated with transportation improvement
issues[B] indicating that aspect occurs: More than half the time: 2;
Number of stakeholders primarily affiliated with transportation
improvement issues[B] indicating that aspect occurs: About half the
time: 1; Number of stakeholders primarily affiliated with
transportation improvement issues[B] indicating that aspect occurs:
Less than half the time or never: 13; Number of stakeholders
primarily affiliated with transportation improvement issues[B]
indicating that aspect occurs: Did not know/not relevant: 0;
Total: 26.
Section 404 causes delays since it values water resources over other
resources leading state departments of transportation to complete time-
consuming analysis; Number of stakeholders primarily affiliated with
environmental and historic preservation issues[A] indicating that
aspect occurs: More than half the time: 0; Number of stakeholders
primarily affiliated with environmental and historic preservation
issues[A] indicating that aspect occurs: About half the time: 3;
Number of stakeholders primarily affiliated with environmental and
historic preservation issues[A] indicating that aspect occurs: Less
than half the time or never: 3; Number of stakeholders primarily
affiliated with environmental and historic preservation issues[A]
indicating that aspect occurs: Did not know/not relevant: 4;
Number of stakeholders primarily affiliated with
transportation improvement issues[B] indicating that aspect occurs:
More than half the time: 9; Number of stakeholders primarily affiliated
with transportation improvement issues[B] indicating that aspect
occurs: About half the time: 3; Number of stakeholders primarily
affiliated with transportation improvement issues[B] indicating that
aspect occurs: Less than half the time or never: 4; Number of
stakeholders primarily affiliated with transportation improvement
issues[B] indicating that aspect occurs: Did not know/not relevant:
0; Total: 26.
State departments of transportation and federal resource agencies are
unable to maintain institutional expertise due to staff turnover;
Number of stakeholders primarily affiliated with environmental and
historic preservation issues[A] indicating that aspect occurs: More
than half the time: 3; Number of stakeholders primarily affiliated with
environmental and historic preservation issues[A] indicating that
aspect occurs: About half the time: 1; Number of stakeholders
primarily affiliated with environmental and historic preservation
issues[A] indicating that aspect occurs: Less than half the time or
never: 4; Number of stakeholders primarily affiliated with
environmental and historic preservation issues[A] indicating that
aspect occurs: Did not know/not relevant: 2; Number of
stakeholders primarily affiliated with transportation improvement
issues[B] indicating that aspect occurs: More than half the time: 6;
Number of stakeholders primarily affiliated with transportation
improvement issues[B] indicating that aspect occurs: About half the
time: 4; Number of stakeholders primarily affiliated with
transportation improvement issues[B] indicating that aspect occurs:
Less than half the time or never: 5; Number of stakeholders primarily
affiliated with transportation improvement issues[B] indicating that
aspect occurs: Did not know/not relevant: 1; Total: 26.
State departments of transportation underestimate project costs and the
review stalls while state seeks funding; Number of stakeholders
primarily affiliated with environmental and historic preservation
issues[A] indicating that aspect occurs: More than half the time: 5;
Number of stakeholders primarily affiliated with environmental and
historic preservation issues[A] indicating that aspect occurs: About
half the time: 0; Number of stakeholders primarily affiliated with
environmental and historic preservation issues[A] indicating that
aspect occurs: Less than half the time or never: 2; Number of
stakeholders primarily affiliated with environmental and historic
preservation issues[A] indicating that aspect occurs: Did not know/
not relevant: 3; Number of stakeholders primarily affiliated
with transportation improvement issues[B] indicating that aspect
occurs: More than half the time: 3; Number of stakeholders primarily
affiliated with transportation improvement issues[B] indicating that
aspect occurs: About half the time: 2; Number of stakeholders
primarily affiliated with transportation improvement issues[B]
indicating that aspect occurs: Less than half the time or never: 11;
Number of stakeholders primarily affiliated with transportation
improvement issues[B] indicating that aspect occurs: Did not know/
not relevant: 0; Total: 26.
State departments of transportation and resource agencies do not
provide agency comments in a timely manner; Number of stakeholders
primarily affiliated with environmental and historic preservation
issues[A] indicating that aspect occurs: More than half the time: 1;
Number of stakeholders primarily affiliated with environmental and
historic preservation issues[A] indicating that aspect occurs: About
half the time: 2; Number of stakeholders primarily affiliated with
environmental and historic preservation issues[A] indicating that
aspect occurs: Less than half the time or never: 6; Number of
stakeholders primarily affiliated with environmental and historic
preservation issues[A] indicating that aspect occurs: Did not know/
not relevant: 1; Number of stakeholders primarily affiliated
with transportation improvement issues[B] indicating that aspect
occurs: More than half the time: 7; Number of stakeholders primarily
affiliated with transportation improvement issues[B] indicating that
aspect occurs: About half the time: 1; Number of stakeholders
primarily affiliated with transportation improvement issues[B]
indicating that aspect occurs: Less than half the time or never: 8;
Number of stakeholders primarily affiliated with transportation
improvement issues[B] indicating that aspect occurs: Did not know/
not relevant: 0; Total: 26.
Federal environmental protection laws do not accommodate local
transportation needs so additional coordination required to consider
local needs; Number of stakeholders primarily affiliated with
environmental and historic preservation issues[A] indicating that
aspect occurs: More than half the time: 1; Number of stakeholders
primarily affiliated with environmental and historic preservation
issues[A] indicating that aspect occurs: About half the time: 1;
Number of stakeholders primarily affiliated with environmental and
historic preservation issues[A] indicating that aspect occurs: Less
than half the time or never: 6; Number of stakeholders primarily
affiliated with environmental and historic preservation issues[A]
indicating that aspect occurs: Did not know/not relevant: 1;
Number of stakeholders primarily affiliated with
transportation improvement issues[B] indicating that aspect occurs:
More than half the time: 6; Number of stakeholders primarily affiliated
with transportation improvement issues[B] indicating that aspect
occurs: About half the time: 1; Number of stakeholders primarily
affiliated with transportation improvement issues[B] indicating that
aspect occurs: Less than half the time or never: 8; Number of
stakeholders primarily affiliated with transportation improvement
issues[B] indicating that aspect occurs: Did not know/not relevant:
1; Total: 25.
A resource agency's antitransportation agenda leads it to use
permitting authority as a means of delaying transportation projects;
Number of stakeholders primarily affiliated with environmental and
historic preservation issues[A] indicating that aspect occurs: More
than half the time: 0; Number of stakeholders primarily affiliated with
environmental and historic preservation issues[A] indicating that
aspect occurs: About half the time: 1; Number of stakeholders
primarily affiliated with environmental and historic preservation
issues[A] indicating that aspect occurs: Less than half the time or
never: 8; Number of stakeholders primarily affiliated with
environmental and historic preservation issues[A] indicating that
aspect occurs: Did not know/not relevant: 0; Number of
stakeholders primarily affiliated with transportation improvement
issues[B] indicating that aspect occurs: More than half the time: 7;
Number of stakeholders primarily affiliated with transportation
improvement issues[B] indicating that aspect occurs: About half the
time: 5; Number of stakeholders primarily affiliated with
transportation improvement issues[B] indicating that aspect occurs:
Less than half the time or never: 4; Number of stakeholders primarily
affiliated with transportation improvement issues[B] indicating that
aspect occurs: Did not know/not relevant: 0; Total: 25.
Advocacy groups use environmental laws as means to delay or stop
projects even when their disagreement is not over environmental
issues; Number of stakeholders primarily affiliated with environmental
and historic preservation issues[A] indicating that aspect occurs:
More than half the time: 1; Number of stakeholders primarily affiliated
with environmental and historic preservation issues[A] indicating that
aspect occurs: About half the time: 1; Number of stakeholders
primarily affiliated with environmental and historic preservation
issues[A] indicating that aspect occurs: Less than half the time or
never: 7; Number of stakeholders primarily affiliated with
environmental and historic preservation issues[A] indicating that
aspect occurs: Did not know/not relevant: 0; Number of
stakeholders primarily affiliated with transportation improvement
issues[B] indicating that aspect occurs: More than half the time: 6;
Number of stakeholders primarily affiliated with transportation
improvement issues[B] indicating that aspect occurs: About half the
time: 3; Number of stakeholders primarily affiliated with
transportation improvement issues[B] indicating that aspect occurs:
Less than half the time or never: 6; Number of stakeholders primarily
affiliated with transportation improvement issues[B] indicating that
aspect occurs: Did not know/not relevant: 1; Total: 25.
FHWA does not delegate approval authority to state departments of
transportation for projects involving lower levels of environmental
review; Number of stakeholders primarily affiliated with environmental
and historic preservation issues[A] indicating that aspect occurs:
More than half the time: 2; Number of stakeholders primarily affiliated
with environmental and historic preservation issues[A] indicating that
aspect occurs: About half the time: 0; Number of stakeholders
primarily affiliated with environmental and historic preservation
issues[A] indicating that aspect occurs: Less than half the time or
never: 3; Number of stakeholders primarily affiliated with
environmental and historic preservation issues[A] indicating that
aspect occurs: Did not know/not relevant: 5; Number of
stakeholders primarily affiliated with transportation improvement
issues[B] indicating that aspect occurs: More than half the time: 5;
Number of stakeholders primarily affiliated with transportation
improvement issues[B] indicating that aspect occurs: About half the
time: 1; Number of stakeholders primarily affiliated with
transportation improvement issues[B] indicating that aspect occurs:
Less than half the time or never: 8; Number of stakeholders primarily
affiliated with transportation improvement issues[B] indicating that
aspect occurs: Did not know/not relevant: 2; Total: 26.
Resource agencies wait until permitting requires their action to
express concerns and opinions about a proposed project; Number of
stakeholders primarily affiliated with environmental and historic
preservation issues[A] indicating that aspect occurs: More than half
the time: 2; Number of stakeholders primarily affiliated with
environmental and historic preservation issues[A] indicating that
aspect occurs: About half the time: 0; Number of stakeholders
primarily affiliated with environmental and historic preservation
issues[A] indicating that aspect occurs: Less than half the time or
never: 8; Number of stakeholders primarily affiliated with
environmental and historic preservation issues[A] indicating that
aspect occurs: Did not know/not relevant: 0; Number of
stakeholders primarily affiliated with transportation improvement
issues[B] indicating that aspect occurs: More than half the time: 5;
Number of stakeholders primarily affiliated with transportation
improvement issues[B] indicating that aspect occurs: About half the
time: 4; Number of stakeholders primarily affiliated with
transportation improvement issues[B] indicating that aspect occurs:
Less than half the time or never: 6; Number of stakeholders primarily
affiliated with transportation improvement issues[B] indicating that
aspect occurs: Did not know/not relevant: 1; Total: 26.
State departments of transportation and resource agencies interpret
laws and regulations differently; Number of stakeholders primarily
affiliated with environmental and historic preservation issues[A]
indicating that aspect occurs: More than half the time: 2; Number of
stakeholders primarily affiliated with environmental and historic
preservation issues[A] indicating that aspect occurs: About half the
time: 2; Number of stakeholders primarily affiliated with environmental
and historic preservation issues[A] indicating that aspect occurs:
Less than half the time or never: 5; Number of stakeholders primarily
affiliated with environmental and historic preservation issues[A]
indicating that aspect occurs: Did not know/not relevant: 0;
Number of stakeholders primarily affiliated with
transportation improvement issues[B] indicating that aspect occurs:
More than half the time: 4; Number of stakeholders primarily affiliated
with transportation improvement issues[B] indicating that aspect
occurs: About half the time: 4; Number of stakeholders primarily
affiliated with transportation improvement issues[B] indicating that
aspect occurs: Less than half the time or never: 7; Number of
stakeholders primarily affiliated with transportation improvement
issues[B] indicating that aspect occurs: Did not know/not relevant:
1; Total: 25.
State laws protecting certain resources conflict with section 404
regulations; Number of stakeholders primarily affiliated with
environmental and historic preservation issues[A] indicating that
aspect occurs: More than half the time: 2; Number of stakeholders
primarily affiliated with environmental and historic preservation
issues[A] indicating that aspect occurs: About half the time: 1;
Number of stakeholders primarily affiliated with environmental and
historic preservation issues[A] indicating that aspect occurs: Less
than half the time or never: 5; Number of stakeholders primarily
affiliated with environmental and historic preservation issues[A]
indicating that aspect occurs: Did not know/not relevant: 2;
Number of stakeholders primarily affiliated with
transportation improvement issues[B] indicating that aspect occurs:
More than half the time: 4; Number of stakeholders primarily affiliated
with transportation improvement issues[B] indicating that aspect
occurs: About half the time: 1; Number of stakeholders primarily
affiliated with transportation improvement issues[B] indicating that
aspect occurs: Less than half the time or never: 10; Number of
stakeholders primarily affiliated with transportation improvement
issues[B] indicating that aspect occurs: Did not know/not relevant:
0; Total: 25.
State departments of transportation and resource agency leaders follow
personal agendas to the point where each decision must be elevated to
headquarters for resolution; Number of stakeholders primarily
affiliated with environmental and historic preservation issues[A]
indicating that aspect occurs: More than half the time: 0; Number of
stakeholders primarily affiliated with environmental and historic
preservation issues[A] indicating that aspect occurs: About half the
time: 0; Number of stakeholders primarily affiliated with environmental
and historic preservation issues[A] indicating that aspect occurs:
Less than half the time or never: 8; Number of stakeholders primarily
affiliated with environmental and historic preservation issues[A]
indicating that aspect occurs: Did not know/not relevant: 1;
Number of stakeholders primarily affiliated with
transportation improvement issues[B] indicating that aspect occurs:
More than half the time: 6; Number of stakeholders primarily affiliated
with transportation improvement issues[B] indicating that aspect
occurs: About half the time: 2; Number of stakeholders primarily
affiliated with transportation improvement issues[B] indicating that
aspect occurs: Less than half the time or never: 7; Number of
stakeholders primarily affiliated with transportation improvement
issues[B] indicating that aspect occurs: Did not know/not relevant:
1; Total: 25.
Issues are revisited because state departments of transportation and
resource agencies back out of agreements or do not follow through on
promises made; Number of stakeholders primarily affiliated with
environmental and historic preservation issues[A] indicating that
aspect occurs: More than half the time: 0; Number of stakeholders
primarily affiliated with environmental and historic preservation
issues[A] indicating that aspect occurs: About half the time: 1;
Number of stakeholders primarily affiliated with environmental and
historic preservation issues[A] indicating that aspect occurs: Less
than half the time or never: 7; Number of stakeholders primarily
affiliated with environmental and historic preservation issues[A]
indicating that aspect occurs: Did not know/not relevant: 1;
Number of stakeholders primarily affiliated with
transportation improvement issues[B] indicating that aspect occurs:
More than half the time: 6; Number of stakeholders primarily affiliated
with transportation improvement issues[B] indicating that aspect
occurs: About half the time: 3; Number of stakeholders primarily
affiliated with transportation improvement issues[B] indicating that
aspect occurs: Less than half the time or never: 7; Number of
stakeholders primarily affiliated with transportation improvement
issues[B] indicating that aspect occurs: Did not know/not relevant:
0; Total: 25.
Groups opposing a transportation project do not use public hearings to
express concerns with a project but wait until after the environmental
review is completed to file lawsuits; Number of stakeholders primarily
affiliated with environmental and historic preservation issues[A]
indicating that aspect occurs: More than half the time: 1; Number of
stakeholders primarily affiliated with environmental and historic
preservation issues[A] indicating that aspect occurs: About half the
time: 2; Number of stakeholders primarily affiliated with environmental
and historic preservation issues[A] indicating that aspect occurs:
Less than half the time or never: 5; Number of stakeholders primarily
affiliated with environmental and historic preservation issues[A]
indicating that aspect occurs: Did not know/not relevant: 1;
Number of stakeholders primarily affiliated with
transportation improvement issues[B] indicating that aspect occurs:
More than half the time: 5; Number of stakeholders primarily affiliated
with transportation improvement issues[B] indicating that aspect
occurs: About half the time: 1; Number of stakeholders primarily
affiliated with transportation improvement issues[B] indicating that
aspect occurs: Less than half the time or never: 10; Number of
stakeholders primarily affiliated with transportation improvement
issues[B] indicating that aspect occurs: Did not know/not relevant:
0; Total: 25.
Section 404 evaluates created and natural wetlands similarly so state
departments of transportation must complete similar environmental
reviews, regardless of environmental value; Number of stakeholders
primarily affiliated with environmental and historic preservation
issues[A] indicating that aspect occurs: More than half the time: 0;
Number of stakeholders primarily affiliated with environmental and
historic preservation issues[A] indicating that aspect occurs: About
half the time: 1; Number of stakeholders primarily affiliated with
environmental and historic preservation issues[A] indicating that
aspect occurs: Less than half the time or never: 5; Number of
stakeholders primarily affiliated with environmental and historic
preservation issues[A] indicating that aspect occurs: Did not know/
not relevant: 4; Number of stakeholders primarily affiliated
with transportation improvement issues[B] indicating that aspect
occurs: More than half the time: 6; Number of stakeholders primarily
affiliated with transportation improvement issues[B] indicating that
aspect occurs: About half the time: 1; Number of stakeholders
primarily affiliated with transportation improvement issues[B]
indicating that aspect occurs: Less than half the time or never: 9;
Number of stakeholders primarily affiliated with transportation
improvement issues[B] indicating that aspect occurs: Did not know/
not relevant: 0; Total: 26.
State departments of transportation may have to wait up to a year or
more for the appropriate season to demonstrate existence of species;
Number of stakeholders primarily affiliated with environmental and
historic preservation issues[A] indicating that aspect occurs: More
than half the time: 2; Number of stakeholders primarily affiliated with
environmental and historic preservation issues[A] indicating that
aspect occurs: About half the time: 0; Number of stakeholders
primarily affiliated with environmental and historic preservation
issues[A] indicating that aspect occurs: Less than half the time or
never: 3; Number of stakeholders primarily affiliated with
environmental and historic preservation issues[A] indicating that
aspect occurs: Did not know/not relevant: 4; Number of
stakeholders primarily affiliated with transportation improvement
issues[B] indicating that aspect occurs: More than half the time: 3;
Number of stakeholders primarily affiliated with transportation
improvement issues[B] indicating that aspect occurs: About half the
time: 6; Number of stakeholders primarily affiliated with
transportation improvement issues[B] indicating that aspect occurs:
Less than half the time or never: 6; Number of stakeholders primarily
affiliated with transportation improvement issues[B] indicating that
aspect occurs: Did not know/not relevant: 1; Total: 25.
The permit application process is sequential; Number of stakeholders
primarily affiliated with environmental and historic preservation
issues[A] indicating that aspect occurs: More than half the time: 1;
Number of stakeholders primarily affiliated with environmental and
historic preservation issues[A] indicating that aspect occurs: About
half the time: 2; Number of stakeholders primarily affiliated with
environmental and historic preservation issues[A] indicating that
aspect occurs: Less than half the time or never: 3; Number of
stakeholders primarily affiliated with environmental and historic
preservation issues[A] indicating that aspect occurs: Did not know/
not relevant: 4; Number of stakeholders primarily affiliated
with transportation improvement issues[B] indicating that aspect
occurs: More than half the time: 4; Number of stakeholders primarily
affiliated with transportation improvement issues[B] indicating that
aspect occurs: About half the time: 0; Number of stakeholders
primarily affiliated with transportation improvement issues[B]
indicating that aspect occurs: Less than half the time or never: 10;
Number of stakeholders primarily affiliated with transportation
improvement issues[B] indicating that aspect occurs: Did not know/
not relevant: 2; Total: 26.
Inadequate staff at FHWA division offices and state departments of
transportation leads to inadequate environmental analysis; Number of
stakeholders primarily affiliated with environmental and historic
preservation issues[A] indicating that aspect occurs: More than half
the time: 3; Number of stakeholders primarily affiliated with
environmental and historic preservation issues[A] indicating that
aspect occurs: About half the time: 0; Number of stakeholders
primarily affiliated with environmental and historic preservation
issues[A] indicating that aspect occurs: Less than half the time or
never: 3; Number of stakeholders primarily affiliated with
environmental and historic preservation issues[A] indicating that
aspect occurs: Did not know/not relevant: 4; Number of
stakeholders primarily affiliated with transportation improvement
issues[B] indicating that aspect occurs: More than half the time: 2;
Number of stakeholders primarily affiliated with transportation
improvement issues[B] indicating that aspect occurs: About half the
time: 3; Number of stakeholders primarily affiliated with
transportation improvement issues[B] indicating that aspect occurs:
Less than half the time or never: 10; Number of stakeholders
primarily affiliated with transportation improvement issues[B]
indicating that aspect occurs: Did not know/not relevant: 1;
Total: 26.
State departments of transportation and resource agencies lack way to
resolve disagreements about traffic models; Number of stakeholders
primarily affiliated with environmental and historic preservation
issues[A] indicating that aspect occurs: More than half the time: 3;
Number of stakeholders primarily affiliated with environmental and
historic preservation issues[A] indicating that aspect occurs: About
half the time: 2; Number of stakeholders primarily affiliated with
environmental and historic preservation issues[A] indicating that
aspect occurs: Less than half the time or never: 5; Number of
stakeholders primarily affiliated with environmental and historic
preservation issues[A] indicating that aspect occurs: Did not know/
not relevant: 1; Number of stakeholders primarily affiliated
with transportation improvement issues[B] indicating that aspect
occurs: More than half the time: 2; Number of stakeholders primarily
affiliated with transportation improvement issues[B] indicating that
aspect occurs: About half the time: 3; Number of stakeholders
primarily affiliated with transportation improvement issues[B]
indicating that aspect occurs: Less than half the time or never: 10;
Number of stakeholders primarily affiliated with transportation
improvement issues[B] indicating that aspect occurs: Did not know/
not relevant: 1; Total: 27.
State departments of transportation and resource agencies do not work
to resolve technical and analytical differences; Number of
stakeholders primarily affiliated with environmental and historic
preservation issues[A] indicating that aspect occurs: More than half
the time: 0; Number of stakeholders primarily affiliated with
environmental and historic preservation issues[A] indicating that
aspect occurs: About half the time: 3; Number of stakeholders
primarily affiliated with environmental and historic preservation
issues[A] indicating that aspect occurs: Less than half the time or
never: 8; Number of stakeholders primarily affiliated with
environmental and historic preservation issues[A] indicating that
aspect occurs: Did not know/not relevant: 0; Number of
stakeholders primarily affiliated with transportation improvement
issues[B] indicating that aspect occurs: More than half the time: 5;
Number of stakeholders primarily affiliated with transportation
improvement issues[B] indicating that aspect occurs: About half the
time: 3; Number of stakeholders primarily affiliated with
transportation improvement issues[B] indicating that aspect occurs:
Less than half the time or never: 7; Number of stakeholders primarily
affiliated with transportation improvement issues[B] indicating that
aspect occurs: Did not know/not relevant: 1; Total: 27.
The National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 process does not readily
accommodate unexpected issues during existing reviews; Number of
stakeholders primarily affiliated with environmental and historic
preservation issues[A] indicating that aspect occurs: More than half
the time: 1; Number of stakeholders primarily affiliated with
environmental and historic preservation issues[A] indicating that
aspect occurs: About half the time: 1; Number of stakeholders
primarily affiliated with environmental and historic preservation
issues[A] indicating that aspect occurs: Less than half the time or
never: 5; Number of stakeholders primarily affiliated with
environmental and historic preservation issues[A] indicating that
aspect occurs: Did not know/not relevant: 2; Number of
stakeholders primarily affiliated with transportation improvement
issues[B] indicating that aspect occurs: More than half the time: 3;
Number of stakeholders primarily affiliated with transportation
improvement issues[B] indicating that aspect occurs: About half the
time: 1; Number of stakeholders primarily affiliated with
transportation improvement issues[B] indicating that aspect occurs:
Less than half the time or never: 12; Number of stakeholders
primarily affiliated with transportation improvement issues[B]
indicating that aspect occurs: Did not know/not relevant: 0;
Total: 25.
Resource agency centralization of permit approval adds another level of
review; Number of stakeholders primarily affiliated with environmental
and historic preservation issues[A] indicating that aspect occurs:
More than half the time: 1; Number of stakeholders primarily affiliated
with environmental and historic preservation issues[A] indicating that
aspect occurs: About half the time: 0; Number of stakeholders
primarily affiliated with environmental and historic preservation
issues[A] indicating that aspect occurs: Less than half the time or
never: 3; Number of stakeholders primarily affiliated with
environmental and historic preservation issues[A] indicating that
aspect occurs: Did not know/not relevant: 6; Number of
stakeholders primarily affiliated with transportation improvement
issues[B] indicating that aspect occurs: More than half the time: 3;
Number of stakeholders primarily affiliated with transportation
improvement issues[B] indicating that aspect occurs: About half the
time: 2; Number of stakeholders primarily affiliated with
transportation improvement issues[B] indicating that aspect occurs:
Less than half the time or never: 9; Number of stakeholders primarily
affiliated with transportation improvement issues[B] indicating that
aspect occurs: Did not know/not relevant: 2; Total: 26.
Environmental reviews are held-up because changes in state or local
political leadership alters project's priority and funding; Number of
stakeholders primarily affiliated with environmental and historic
preservation issues[A] indicating that aspect occurs: More than half
the time: 3; Number of stakeholders primarily affiliated with
environmental and historic preservation issues[A] indicating that
aspect occurs: About half the time: 0; Number of stakeholders
primarily affiliated with environmental and historic preservation
issues[A] indicating that aspect occurs: Less than half the time or
never: 5; Number of stakeholders primarily affiliated with
environmental and historic preservation issues[A] indicating that
aspect occurs: Did not know/not relevant: 2; Number of
stakeholders primarily affiliated with transportation improvement
issues[B] indicating that aspect occurs: More than half the time: 1;
Number of stakeholders primarily affiliated with transportation
improvement issues[B] indicating that aspect occurs: About half the
time: 2; Number of stakeholders primarily affiliated with
transportation improvement issues[B] indicating that aspect occurs:
Less than half the time or never: 13; Number of stakeholders
primarily affiliated with transportation improvement issues[B]
indicating that aspect occurs: Did not know/not relevant: 0;
Total: 26.
State departments of transportation fail to consult with Native
American tribes during the environmental process; Number of
stakeholders primarily affiliated with environmental and historic
preservation issues[A] indicating that aspect occurs: More than half
the time: 3; Number of stakeholders primarily affiliated with
environmental and historic preservation issues[A] indicating that
aspect occurs: About half the time: 1; Number of stakeholders
primarily affiliated with environmental and historic preservation
issues[A] indicating that aspect occurs: Less than half the time or
never: 3; Number of stakeholders primarily affiliated with
environmental and historic preservation issues[A] indicating that
aspect occurs: Did not know/not relevant: 3; Number of
stakeholders primarily affiliated with transportation improvement
issues[B] indicating that aspect occurs: More than half the time: 0;
Number of stakeholders primarily affiliated with transportation
improvement issues[B] indicating that aspect occurs: About half the
time: 1; Number of stakeholders primarily affiliated with
transportation improvement issues[B] indicating that aspect occurs:
Less than half the time or never: 12; Number of stakeholders
primarily affiliated with transportation improvement issues[B]
indicating that aspect occurs: Did not know/not relevant: 3;
Total: 26.
FHWA division offices do not adequately verify state departments of
transportation environmental categorization or oversee state review
process; Number of stakeholders primarily affiliated with
environmental and historic preservation issues[A] indicating that
aspect occurs: More than half the time: 3; Number of stakeholders
primarily affiliated with environmental and historic preservation
issues[A] indicating that aspect occurs: About half the time: 2;
Number of stakeholders primarily affiliated with environmental and
historic preservation issues[A] indicating that aspect occurs: Less
than half the time or never: 4; Number of stakeholders primarily
affiliated with environmental and historic preservation issues[A]
indicating that aspect occurs: Did not know/not relevant: 1;
Number of stakeholders primarily affiliated with
transportation improvement issues[B] indicating that aspect occurs:
More than half the time: 0; Number of stakeholders primarily affiliated
with transportation improvement issues[B] indicating that aspect
occurs: About half the time: 1; Number of stakeholders primarily
affiliated with transportation improvement issues[B] indicating that
aspect occurs: Less than half the time or never: 15; Number of
stakeholders primarily affiliated with transportation improvement
issues[B] indicating that aspect occurs: Did not know/not relevant:
0; Total: 26.
Resource agencies and state departments of transportation are unable to
communicate due to a lack of common understanding of technical terms;
Number of stakeholders primarily affiliated with environmental and
historic preservation issues[A] indicating that aspect occurs: More
than half the time: 2; Number of stakeholders primarily affiliated with
environmental and historic preservation issues[A] indicating that
aspect occurs: About half the time: 2; Number of stakeholders
primarily affiliated with environmental and historic preservation
issues[A] indicating that aspect occurs: Less than half the time or
never: 4; Number of stakeholders primarily affiliated with
environmental and historic preservation issues[A] indicating that
aspect occurs: Did not know/not relevant: 2; Number of
stakeholders primarily affiliated with transportation improvement
issues[B] indicating that aspect occurs: More than half the time: 1;
Number of stakeholders primarily affiliated with transportation
improvement issues[B] indicating that aspect occurs: About half the
time: 1; Number of stakeholders primarily affiliated with
transportation improvement issues[B] indicating that aspect occurs:
Less than half the time or never: 13; Number of stakeholders
primarily affiliated with transportation improvement issues[B]
indicating that aspect occurs: Did not know/not relevant: 1;
Total: 26.
Federal resource agencies' lack of technical resources hampers their
analytic performance; Number of stakeholders primarily affiliated with
environmental and historic preservation issues[A] indicating that
aspect occurs: More than half the time: 1; Number of stakeholders
primarily affiliated with environmental and historic preservation
issues[A] indicating that aspect occurs: About half the time: 4;
Number of stakeholders primarily affiliated with environmental and
historic preservation issues[A] indicating that aspect occurs: Less
than half the time or never: 3; Number of stakeholders primarily
affiliated with environmental and historic preservation issues[A]
indicating that aspect occurs: Did not know/not relevant: 2;
Number of stakeholders primarily affiliated with
transportation improvement issues[B] indicating that aspect occurs:
More than half the time: 2; Number of stakeholders primarily affiliated
with transportation improvement issues[B] indicating that aspect
occurs: About half the time: 5; Number of stakeholders primarily
affiliated with transportation improvement issues[B] indicating that
aspect occurs: Less than half the time or never: 8; Number of
stakeholders primarily affiliated with transportation improvement
issues[B] indicating that aspect occurs: Did not know/not relevant:
1; Total: 26.
State departments of transportation find it difficult to resolve
conflicting criteria inherent in projects covered under section 4(f)
and section 106; Number of stakeholders primarily affiliated with
environmental and historic preservation issues[A] indicating that
aspect occurs: More than half the time: 1; Number of stakeholders
primarily affiliated with environmental and historic preservation
issues[A] indicating that aspect occurs: About half the time: 0;
Number of stakeholders primarily affiliated with environmental and
historic preservation issues[A] indicating that aspect occurs: Less
than half the time or never: 9; Number of stakeholders primarily
affiliated with environmental and historic preservation issues[A]
indicating that aspect occurs: Did not know/not relevant: 1;
Number of stakeholders primarily affiliated with
transportation improvement issues[B] indicating that aspect occurs:
More than half the time: 2; Number of stakeholders primarily affiliated
with transportation improvement issues[B] indicating that aspect
occurs: About half the time: 4; Number of stakeholders primarily
affiliated with transportation improvement issues[B] indicating that
aspect occurs: Less than half the time or never: 10; Number of
stakeholders primarily affiliated with transportation improvement
issues[B] indicating that aspect occurs: Did not know/not relevant:
0; Total: 27.
State departments of transportation misclassify level of environmental
review; Number of stakeholders primarily affiliated with environmental
and historic preservation issues[A] indicating that aspect occurs:
More than half the time: 2; Number of stakeholders primarily affiliated
with environmental and historic preservation issues[A] indicating that
aspect occurs: About half the time: 1; Number of stakeholders
primarily affiliated with environmental and historic preservation
issues[A] indicating that aspect occurs: Less than half the time or
never: 5; Number of stakeholders primarily affiliated with
environmental and historic preservation issues[A] indicating that
aspect occurs: Did not know/not relevant: 2; Number of
stakeholders primarily affiliated with transportation improvement
issues[B] indicating that aspect occurs: More than half the time: 0;
Number of stakeholders primarily affiliated with transportation
improvement issues[B] indicating that aspect occurs: About half the
time: 1; Number of stakeholders primarily affiliated with
transportation improvement issues[B] indicating that aspect occurs:
Less than half the time or never: 15; Number of stakeholders
primarily affiliated with transportation improvement issues[B]
indicating that aspect occurs: Did not know/not relevant: 0;
Total: 26.
FHWA will require the state departments of transportation to conduct
additional analysis of project alternatives that a state department of
transportation has already discarded; Number of stakeholders primarily
affiliated with environmental and historic preservation issues[A]
indicating that aspect occurs: More than half the time: 0; Number of
stakeholders primarily affiliated with environmental and historic
preservation issues[A] indicating that aspect occurs: About half the
time: 1; Number of stakeholders primarily affiliated with environmental
and historic preservation issues[A] indicating that aspect occurs:
Less than half the time or never: 5; Number of stakeholders primarily
affiliated with environmental and historic preservation issues[A]
indicating that aspect occurs: Did not know/not relevant: 4;
Number of stakeholders primarily affiliated with
transportation improvement issues[B] indicating that aspect occurs:
More than half the time: 2; Number of stakeholders primarily affiliated
with transportation improvement issues[B] indicating that aspect
occurs: About half the time: 3; Number of stakeholders primarily
affiliated with transportation improvement issues[B] indicating that
aspect occurs: Less than half the time or never: 10; Number of
stakeholders primarily affiliated with transportation improvement
issues[B] indicating that aspect occurs: Did not know/not relevant:
1; Total: 26.
Resource agency field offices do not consult with headquarters to
resolve disputes; Number of stakeholders primarily affiliated with
environmental and historic preservation issues[A] indicating that
aspect occurs: More than half the time: 0; Number of stakeholders
primarily affiliated with environmental and historic preservation
issues[A] indicating that aspect occurs: About half the time: 0;
Number of stakeholders primarily affiliated with environmental and
historic preservation issues[A] indicating that aspect occurs: Less
than half the time or never: 3; Number of stakeholders primarily
affiliated with environmental and historic preservation issues[A]
indicating that aspect occurs: Did not know/not relevant: 7;
Number of stakeholders primarily affiliated with
transportation improvement issues[B] indicating that aspect occurs:
More than half the time: 2; Number of stakeholders primarily affiliated
with transportation improvement issues[B] indicating that aspect
occurs: About half the time: 2; Number of stakeholders primarily
affiliated with transportation improvement issues[B] indicating that
aspect occurs: Less than half the time or never: 9; Number of
stakeholders primarily affiliated with transportation improvement
issues[B] indicating that aspect occurs: Did not know/not relevant:
3; Total: 26.
Metropolitan planning organizations and state departments of
transportation struggle over leadership; Number of stakeholders
primarily affiliated with environmental and historic preservation
issues[A] indicating that aspect occurs: More than half the time: 0;
Number of stakeholders primarily affiliated with environmental and
historic preservation issues[A] indicating that aspect occurs: About
half the time: 0; Number of stakeholders primarily affiliated with
environmental and historic preservation issues[A] indicating that
aspect occurs: Less than half the time or never: 3; Number of
stakeholders primarily affiliated with environmental and historic
preservation issues[A] indicating that aspect occurs: Did not know/
not relevant: 7; Number of stakeholders primarily affiliated
with transportation improvement issues[B] indicating that aspect
occurs: More than half the time: 1; Number of stakeholders primarily
affiliated with transportation improvement issues[B] indicating that
aspect occurs: About half the time: 0; Number of stakeholders
primarily affiliated with transportation improvement issues[B]
indicating that aspect occurs: Less than half the time or never: 13;
Number of stakeholders primarily affiliated with transportation
improvement issues[B] indicating that aspect occurs: Did not know/
not relevant: 1; Total: 25.
State departments of transportation don't prioritize projects by size;
Number of stakeholders primarily affiliated with environmental and
historic preservation issues[A] indicating that aspect occurs: More
than half the time: 0; Number of stakeholders primarily affiliated with
environmental and historic preservation issues[A] indicating that
aspect occurs: About half the time: 0; Number of stakeholders
primarily affiliated with environmental and historic preservation
issues[A] indicating that aspect occurs: Less than half the time or
never: 2; Number of stakeholders primarily affiliated with
environmental and historic preservation issues[A] indicating that
aspect occurs: Did not know/not relevant: 8; Number of
stakeholders primarily affiliated with transportation improvement
issues[B] indicating that aspect occurs: More than half the time: 1;
Number of stakeholders primarily affiliated with transportation
improvement issues[B] indicating that aspect occurs: About half the
time: 1; Number of stakeholders primarily affiliated with
transportation improvement issues[B] indicating that aspect occurs:
Less than half the time or never: 11; Number of stakeholders
primarily affiliated with transportation improvement issues[B]
indicating that aspect occurs: Did not know/not relevant: 3;
Total: 26.
Source: GAO analysis of Responses from 28 stakeholders.
[A] Environmental stakeholders include federal resource agencies,
environmental advocacy organizations, and state historic preservation
agencies.
[B] Transportation improvement stakeholders include transportation
advocacy organizations, state departments of transportation, and FHWA
division offices.
[End of table]
(542014):
FOOTNOTES
[1] U.S. General Accounting Office, Highway Infrastructure: Perceptions
of Stakeholders on Approaches to Reduce Highway Project Completion
Time, GAO-03-398 (Washington, D.C.: April 9, 2003).
[2] U.S. General Accounting Office, Highway Infrastructure: Preliminary
Information on the Timely Completion of Highway Construction Projects,
GAO-03-1067T (Washington, D.C.: Sept. 19, 2002).
[3] We chose these two states because transportation officials that we
interviewed identified these states as those that have studied their
environmental review procedures and have taken steps to improve the
timeliness of environmental reviews. When discussing activities
involved in environmental review, we include environmentally related
activities, such as determining whether environmental resources are
present or obtaining permits, that may be undertaken before
environmental reviews are started or after they are completed as well
as the activities that take place during environmental review.
[4] GAO-03-398.
[5] From section 4(f) of the Department of Transportation Act, which
contained similar language.
[6] According to Council on Environmental Quality regulations, the
magnitude or significance of environmental impacts should be considered
in the context of (1) society as a whole, the affected region, or the
locality and (2) the intensity or severity of impacts, including the
degree to which the project affects public health or safety; unique
characteristics of the geographic area; resources listed in or eligible
for listing in the National Register of Historic Places; an endangered
species or threatened species or their habitat; or establishes a
precedent for future actions with significant effects; level of
controversy; relationship to other actions with cumulative impacts;
presence of unique or unknown risks; or potential to threaten a
violation of federal, state, or local law or requirements imposed for
the protection of the environment.
[7] Under these regulations, states may determine that a project falls
within a class or category of projects that do not have significant
environmental impact. These determinations are called categorical
exclusions. FHWA regulations define categorical exclusions as actions,
which based on past experience with similar actions, do not induce
significant impacts to planned growth or land use for the area; require
the relocation of significant numbers of people; have a significant
impact on any natural, cultural, recreational, historic or other
resource; involve significant air, noise, or water quality impacts;
have significant impacts on travel patterns; or otherwise, either
individually or cumulatively, have significant environmental impacts.
[8] FHWA officials told us that these results should be considered as a
general exploration of time frames, rather than a definitive
assessment.
[9] The researchers defined delay to mean the amount of time beyond
what state officials estimated was a reasonable length of time for
completing environmental review. State department of transportation
officials were asked to estimate what would be a reasonable length of
time for environmental review and also report the actual time for
environmental review of two projects that typified delays their state
had experienced with categorical exclusions. In total, 51 projects that
qualified for categorical exclusions were identified. TransTech
Management, Inc., Environmental Streamlining: A Report on Delays
Associated with the Categorical Exclusion and Environmental Assessment
Process (Washington, D.C.: October 2000).
[10] In total, 50 projects that qualified for environmental assessments
were identified.
[11] This duration is measured using formal FHWA decision points.
States, such as Maryland and North Carolina, may conduct some
environmental review activities before or after these decision points,
such as early identification of expected impacts and obtaining permits
from federal agencies with responsibilities for such things as water
quality and wetlands that extend this duration.
[12] In 2002, the average time to complete an environmental review for
projects requiring an environmental impact statement was 6.5 years,
according to FHWA.
[13] Federal Highway Administration, Evaluating the Performance of
Environmental Streamlining: Development of a NEPA Baseline for
Measuring Continuous Performance (Washington, D.C.: May 8, 2001).
[14] Federal law allows court challenges within 6 years of final
federal approval of an environmental impact statement.
[15] States are statutorily required to undertake a continuous
transportation planning process which, among other things, considers
the environmental effects of transportation decisions to develop a
transportation improvement program which identifies and prioritizes
only those transportation projects proposed that are reasonably
expected to have funding available.
[16] According to the Council on Environmental Quality, which developed
regulations implementing NEPA, reasonable alternatives are those that
are practical or feasible from the technical and economic standpoint,
rather than simply desirable from the standpoint of the agency. For
example, reasonable alternatives for a major urban highway project
could include considering options such as fringe parking, ridesharing,
high occupancy vehicle lanes, and mass transit.
[17] According to the Council on Environmental Quality, the preferred
alternative is the alternative which the state department of
transportation believes would best fulfill its statutory mission and
responsibilities, giving consideration to economic, environmental,
technical, and other factors.
[18] FHWA cannot issue its decision until 30 days have elapsed from
when the public and resource agencies had an opportunity to comment on
the final environmental impact statement.
[19] Stakeholders rated each aspect according to the following scale: 1
= almost never or never; 2 = less than half of the time; 3 = about half
of the time; 4 = more than half of the time; 5 = all or almost all of
the time. Stakeholders also could indicate that they did not know or
that the aspect was not relevant.
[20] Not all stakeholders rated each aspect. At least 25 stakeholders
(89 percent) responded to every aspect.
[21] GAO-03-398.
[22] GAO-03-398.
[23] 1 = almost never or never; 2 = less than half of the time; 3 =
about half of the time; 4 = more than half of the time; 5 = all or
almost all of the time. Stakeholders could also indicate that they did
not know or that the aspect was not relevant.
[24] The duration of environmental reviews involving environmental
impact statements is typically determined by measuring the length of
time between when FHWA notifies the public that detailed environmental
review of a project is needed (notice of intent) to when FHWA issues
its decision that projects have complied with environmental laws
(record of decision). FHWA reports that for highway projects requiring
an environmental impact statement and for which FHWA signed a record of
decision in 2001, environmental review took an average of approximately
5 years from notice of intent to record of decision. The flowchart
should not be interpreted as suggesting that environmental review of
projects (as measured from notice of intent to record of decision) in
Maryland and North Carolina typically takes 7 years or more.
GAO's Mission:
The General Accounting Office, the 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 e-mail alerts" under the "Order
GAO Products" heading.
Order by Mail or Phone:
The first copy of each printed report is free. Additional copies are $2
each. A check or money order should be made out to the Superintendent
of Documents. GAO also accepts VISA and Mastercard. Orders for 100 or
more copies mailed to a single address are discounted 25 percent.
Orders should be sent to:
U.S. General Accounting Office
441 G Street NW,
Room LM Washington,
D.C. 20548:
To order by Phone:
Voice: (202) 512-6000:
TDD: (202) 512-2537:
Fax: (202) 512-6061:
To Report Fraud, Waste, and Abuse in Federal Programs:
Contact:
Web site: www.gao.gov/fraudnet/fraudnet.htm E-mail: fraudnet@gao.gov
Automated answering system: (800) 424-5454 or (202) 512-7470:
Public Affairs:
Jeff Nelligan, managing director, NelliganJ@gao.gov (202) 512-4800 U.S.
General Accounting Office, 441 G Street NW, Room 7149 Washington, D.C.
20548: