For fiscal year 2003, FHWA  expects to fund about $20 billion for highway infrastructure improvements  and projects designed to relieve congestion. For projects that state departments of transportation  demonstrate are likely to have minimal environmental impacts or in  situations in which the existence of significant environmental impacts is  initially unclear, FHWA provides for a simplified and less structured review  of environmental impacts. More extensive and structured environmental  review is required from FHWA for projects in which significant  environmental impacts are anticipated. 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. 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. Identifying alternatives and assessing environmental impacts. 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. 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. 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. Obtaining wetlands permits considered time consuming. 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. 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.
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.