	Background

FHWA and FTA fund and oversee highway and transit projects,  respectively. Project sponsors that do not use federal funds for a project  generally do not need to meet NEPA requirements, but may still need to  satisfy state or local environmental review requirements. Project sponsors are to prepare environmental assessments when,  among other things, it is not clear whether a project is expected to  have significant environmental impacts. If the agency  determines the project may cause significant environmental impacts, it  conducts an EIS. For instance, these provisions are primarily comprised of new categorical  exclusions. Additionally, the Minor Impacts to Protected Public Land  provision authorizes a historic site, parkland, or refuge to be used for a  transportation project if that project is determined to have a de minimis  impact on the environment. State DOTs Reported That a Number of Provisions They Used Sped Up Highway Project Delivery, While for Most Selected Transit Agencies Effects Were Unclear

		More Than Half of Optional Provisions Were Reported to Be Used by a Majority of State DOTs on Highway Projects

According to survey responses, 10 of the 17 optional provisions included  in the survey—which primarily fall under the Accelerated NEPA Review  category—were each used by 30 or more state DOTs (see fig. As a result, the state DOTs did not  realize any new time savings after the provisions were enacted in law. Some transit agencies told us that the provisions they used sped up  project delivery. While some selected transit agencies reported using some provisions and  added that this provision’s use helped speed up project delivery or lower  costs, the effects of the provisions—whether they sped up project delivery  or streamlined the NEPA review process—were not clear to a majority of  the selected transit agencies. However, we found the  reported time savings to be questionable for several reasons, including  challenges faced by California and Texas in establishing sound baselines  for comparison. Second, California and Texas have faced challenges creating appropriate  baselines. States are responsible for determining how many and which  projects to include in baseline calculations and adopting their own  methodologies. However, the EIS baseline may not be meaningful. For example, information available on the California DOT’s web site as of  November 2017 presents these data and states that they are evidence of  saving “significant time in reviewing and approving its NEPA documents  since undertaking NEPA assignment.”
Moreover, the California DOT’s reported median time frame of 6 years for  EIS reviews only accounts for those projects that have both started and  completed their environmental review since the state assumed NEPA  authority. FHWA officials stated that they advise NEPA assignment states on  process improvements and technical assistance, but that no state has  requested assistance developing evaluation methodologies or baselines. However, offering guidance or technical assistance on evaluation  methodologies to measure time savings can help ensure that states are  basing decisions to participate on reliable information and that, in turn,  those NEPA assignment states can provide reliable information to FHWA  and Congress to help assess whether NEPA assignment results in more  efficient environmental reviews. Conclusions

A number of factors can affect the time it takes to complete highway and  transit projects, including the NEPA review process. Recommendation for Executive Action

The FHWA Administrator should offer and provide guidance or technical  assistance to NEPA assignment states on developing evaluation  methodologies, including baseline time frames and timeliness measures. DOT partially concurred with our  recommendation. We are encouraged that DOT stated it would clarify environmental review  start times. We recognize that FHWA has stated that it is  not required by statute to measure environmental review efficiency;  however, FHWA does have broad authority to offer guidance and  technical assistance to help states develop sound program  methodologies, including sharing practices and lessons learned on  evaluation methodologies. FHWA does not actively  track categorical exclusions because state DOTs process most  categorical exclusions without involvement from FHWA, as allowed by  established programmatic agreements. In particular, this report: (1)  identifies the provisions aimed at accelerating the delivery of highway and  transit projects that were included in the last three surface transportation  reauthorizations; (2) examines the extent to which the provisions were  used by state departments of transportation (state DOT) and transit  agencies and the provisions’ reported effects, if any, on accelerating the  delivery of projects; and (3) evaluates the extent to which DOT has  assigned National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA) authority to  states and the reported effects. We met with officials from the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA)  and the Federal Transit Administration (FTA) to confirm that we had a  complete list of project delivery provisions for highway and transit  projects. Other factors,  such as ridership and geographic location, were also considered to select  the 11 transit agencies. To evaluate the extent that DOT has assigned NEPA authority to states  and the effects states have reported from assuming NEPA authority, we  identified states that have assumed NEPA authority based on information  from FHWA: Alaska, California, Florida, Ohio, Texas, and Utah.
Why GAO Did This Study

Since 2005, over 30 provisions have been enacted in law to speed up the delivery of highway and transit projects, mainly by streamlining the NEPA review process. NEPA requires federal agencies to evaluate the potential environmental effects of proposed projects on the human environment. These project delivery provisions included new categorical exclusions to streamline the review process, and a provision allowing DOT to assign federal NEPA approval authority to states.
Congress included provisions in statute for GAO to assess the use of these provisions and whether they have accelerated project delivery. This report examines: (1) which project delivery provisions were used by state DOTs and selected transit agencies and the reported effects, and (2) the extent to which DOT has assigned NEPA authority to states and the reported effects, among other objectives. GAO surveyed all state DOTs and interviewed federal and state DOT officials and 11 selected transit agencies GAO determined were likely to have been affected by the provisions, and analyzed information from NEPA assignment states.

What GAO Found

The Department of Transportation's (DOT) Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) and Federal Transit Administration (FTA) are responsible for National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) compliance on highway and transit projects. Project sponsors that receive federal funds, typically a state DOT or transit agency, develop documents necessary for NEPA compliance for FHWA and FTA to evaluate and approve. Project sponsors prepare an environmental impact statement (EIS) when a project will have a significant environmental impact, or an environmental assessment to determine if a project will have a significant impact. Projects that fit within a category of activities pre-determined to have no significant impact (such as repaving a road) can receive a categorical exclusion, and an EIS or environment assessment is generally not needed. GAO found:
State DOTs and selected transit agencies reported using provisions enacted in law to speed up the delivery of highway and transit projects, and while state DOTs reported that a number of provisions they used sped up delivery of highway projects, the effects on transit projects were less clear. For example, according to GAO's survey responses, 10 of 17 provisions that mainly created new “categorical exclusions” were used by 30 or more state DOTs and generally sped up projects. The provision state DOTs and transit agencies most often reported using was one that authorizes parkland or a historic site to be used for a transportation project if that project has a minimal impact on the environment. A majority of the 11 transit agencies GAO reviewed were not clear whether provisions they used sped up project delivery because these agencies did not track how long it took projects to complete the NEPA process, among other reasons.
DOT assigned NEPA authority to six states: Alaska, California, Florida, Ohio, Texas, and Utah. Under agreements with FHWA, state DOTs calculate time savings by comparing NEPA completion times before (the baseline) and after assuming the authority. Only California and Texas have reported results; California reported that it reduced EIS review time 10 years from a 16-year baseline. However, these reported time savings are questionable because the comparisons do not consider other factors, such as funding, that can affect timelines. In establishing baselines, both states have also faced challenges, such as how many and which projects to include. California reported to its legislature that its baseline may not be meaningful because of the relatively small sample of five projects, but nevertheless presents these data on its web site as evidence of “significant” time savings.
FHWA does not review the states' timeliness measures and time savings estimates, but has broad authority to offer guidance and technical assistance, which can include helping states develop sound evaluation methodologies and baselines. FHWA officials stated that they provide general technical assistance, but that no state has requested help developing evaluation methodologies. Offering and providing such assistance could help ensure that states considering applying for NEPA assignment base their decisions on reliable information, and that FHWA and Congress have reliable information to assess whether NEPA assignment results in more efficient environmental reviews.

What GAO Recommends

FHWA should offer and provide guidance or technical assistance to NEPA assignment states on developing evaluation methodologies, including baseline time frames and timeliness measures. DOT partially concurred with the recommendation, saying it would clarify environmental review start times. GAO continues to believe further evaluation guidance is needed, as discussed in the report.