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: