State environmental laws, such as laws related to the growth-inducing  effects of agency actions may also apply to a proposed highway  project. Three Factors Generally Affect the Types of Environmental Reviews Required for Highway Projects, and State Environmental Review Document Types Largely Mirror NEPA

		Three Factors Generally Affect Whether Federal or State Environmental Reviews Are Required for Highway Projects

Three factors—project funding sources, project characteristics, and rules  allowing state adoption of federal review documents—generally  determine whether a highway project needs a federal environmental  review or a state environmental review, or both. These  requirements contrast with NEPA, which generally focuses on the  potential for significant environmental impacts. Figure 5 illustrates the number of states allowing for full  adoption, in which the NEPA review fulfills the SEPA requirements; those  allowing for the adoption of the federal review with additional state  analyses or documentation (i.e., partial adoption); and those requiring that  state requirements be met separately from the FHWA NEPA review. In addition,  we surveyed state DOTs in each of those 18 states about the degree of  similarity between state requirements and federal requirements identified  in FHWA’s NEPA Toolkit for five of FHWA’s six NEPA principles:  assessment of project impacts, development and evaluation of project  alternatives, mitigation of adverse project impacts, interagency  coordination, and public involvement. Consideration of Project Impacts

For each of the 5 individual requirements related to the consideration of  project impacts, from 10 to 13 (of 17) states reported in our survey that  their requirements for analyzing the environmental impacts of a proposed  highway project are similar to FHWA’s NEPA requirements, although  other states reported having less stringent requirements. Mitigation of Adverse Project Impacts

The extent to which states have requirements to consider mitigation of  environmental impacts as part of their environmental review process that  are similar to FHWA’s NEPA requirements often varies by the type of  review, and 4 of the 17 states reported in our survey that they do not have  mitigation requirements similar to FHWA’s NEPA requirements for any  level of review. Having less stringent or no state  requirements for parkland protection and historic preservation may affect  whether a project is determined to have significant impacts and therefore  whether, for those states that require mitigation, those impacts are  considered and mitigated. State responses to our  survey indicated that public involvement requirements vary, ranging from  states that have no requirement to allow public involvement, to others that  may have more stringent requirements than FHWA’s NEPA rules. Officials in three states told us that they match  the higher standard of FHWA’s NEPA public involvement requirements  for state-only reviews to meet public expectations, even if less was  required by state law. Few Instances of Federal–State Duplication Were Reported; FHWA and States Have Improved Coordination

		Few States Reported Duplication Resulting from Federal and State Environmental Review Processes; More Than Half Reported No Duplication for Any Reason

Officials in 4 (of 18) states expressly identified instances of federal–state  duplication in environmental review processes. In seven of these  states, adopting a NEPA review fulfills SEPA requirements, and state  officials pointed to this adoption as the reason for reporting no duplication  in their survey responses. DOT and CEQ provided technical corrections  about federal and state environmental review requirements, which we  incorporated as appropriate. Appendix I: A Comparison of Federal NEPA Requirements and State Environmental Policy Act Requirements as Applied to Federal-Aid Highway Projects

As discussed in the body of this report, we identified state statutes,  regulations, and orders in the 18 states where review of highway projects  is required under a state environmental policy act (SEPA), and we  compared those requirements to the federal requirements for federal-aid  highway projects under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA)  and implementing regulations issued by the Council on Environmental  Quality (CEQ) and the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA). Some SEPA states are authorized to use NEPA documentation to  meet their SEPA requirements but state officials must make some  kind of independent decision under state law. This report addresses: (1) the factors that determine whether  federal or state environmental reviews are required for highway projects,  and how the types of federal and state environmental review documents  compare; (2) how state environmental review requirements and practices  compare with federal requirements for assessing federal-aid highway  projects; and (3) the extent of any duplication in federal and state reviews,  including frequency and cost, in states with environmental review  requirements for highway projects. This  report focuses on duplication that might occur between state and federal  processes for environmental review of highway projects where there is  duplication of effort.
Why GAO Did This Study

Under NEPA, federal agencies evaluate the potential environmental impacts of proposed projects. FHWA has developed a process for NEPA reviews for federal-aid highway projects, such as roads or bridges. According to the Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) and GAO analysis, 18 states have SEPAs that also require the review of environmental impacts of a variety of actions for highway projects.
The Moving Ahead for Progress in the 21st Century Act (MAP-21) required GAO to examine state environmental reviews for highway projects, including whether they duplicate federal environmental reviews for federal-aid highway projects. This report focuses solely on environmental reviews of highway projects in states with SEPAs and addresses 1) factors determining whether federal or state environmental reviews are required; 2) how state and federal review requirements compare; and 3) the extent of any duplication in federal and state reviews, including frequency and cost. GAO reviewed FHWA and CEQ documents and interviewed officials of these federal agencies; analyzed state laws and regulations; surveyed the 18 states with SEPAs required for highway projects; and interviewed selected state agencies within 9 of those states based on the number of FHWA NEPA reviews underway and other factors.
This report has no recommendations. The U.S. Department of Transportation and CEQ provided technical corrections about federal and state environmental review requirements, which GAO incorporated as appropriate.

What GAO Found

Three factors—project funding sources and project characteristics, and whether a state allows the adoption of federal review documents—generally determine whether a highway project needs a federal environmental review under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) or a state environmental review under state law, or both. Projects without federal highway funding usually do not require a Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) NEPA review, but NEPA reviews of highway projects may still be required to obtain federal permits. Thresholds for environmental review vary under state environmental policy acts (SEPA) and may include project cost or length, whereas NEPA focuses on the potential for significant environmental impacts. Eighteen states have SEPAs required for highway projects, and 17 of these allow for the partial or full adoption of FHWA analyses or documentation to meet state environmental review requirements, according to GAO's survey of these states.
State environmental review requirements are generally similar to the FHWA NEPA process—including consideration of impacts, development and evaluation of project alternatives, mitigation of adverse project impacts, interagency coordination, and public involvement—although differences in specific requirements may affect key environmental decisions. For example, for the consideration of environmental impacts of a proposed highway project, a majority of states responding to GAO's survey indicated that their requirements are similar to FHWA's NEPA requirements overall. However, officials in 7 states GAO surveyed reported that their SEPA requirements related to social and environmental justice impacts are less stringent than FHWA's NEPA requirements. In addition, while state public involvement requirements are generally similar to FHWA's NEPA requirements overall, individual requirements vary, ranging from states that have no requirements to allow public involvement to others that may have more stringent requirements than FHWA's. Officials in 3 states told GAO that in practice they match FHWA's NEPA public involvement requirements for state-only reviews to meet public expectations, even if state law requires less. Further, in the absence of required federal NEPA reviews, certain federal laws related to protection of parklands and historic preservation may not apply to a project, potentially affecting whether a project is determined to have significant impacts and whether those impacts are mitigated.
Officials in 4 of the 18 states in GAO's survey identified instances of potential federal–state duplication in environmental review processes, stemming either from supplemental state requirements or from the lack of alignment between required federal and state review documents. By contrast, 10 of the states in GAO's survey reported that there was no duplication in environmental reviews. Generally, state officials explained that little duplication of effort occurs in state and federal review processes because these reviews are done concurrently by state officials able to address requirements with analyses used for different purposes without replicating effort. Further, 7 of the 10 states reporting no duplication allow for the adoption of a NEPA review to fulfill SEPA requirements. Finally, 4 states pointed to potential duplication or overlap that did not stem from the interaction of state and federal requirements, such as the rework necessary to keep environmental reviews up to date.