Highways and Environment: Transportation Agencies Are Acting to  
Involve Others in Planning and Environmental Decisions		 
(25-APR-08, GAO-08-512R).					 
                                                                 
Meeting the nation's mobility needs requires constructing,	 
improving, and repairing roads and bridges. However, these	 
actions can have serious environmental impacts, such as harming  
water quality and wildlife and their habitats. The federal	 
government's policy is to carry out federally funded highway	 
projects in an environmentally responsible manner, as directed by
the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA) and other	 
environmental and natural resource protection laws. The 	 
environmental review of projects, as required by the act,	 
involves identifying and assessing environmental impacts;	 
evaluating alternatives; seeking input, and in some cases	 
approvals, from federal and state agencies responsible for	 
natural resources, environmental protection, and historic	 
preservation (referred to hereafter as resource agencies); and	 
obtaining approval from the Federal Highway Administration	 
(FHWA). These reviews provide important environmental		 
protections, yet it is generally agreed that it often takes too  
long to complete the most complex highway projects and the	 
environmental review is the most time-consuming aspect. In 2005, 
the Safe, Accountable, Flexible, and Efficient Transportation	 
Equity Act: A Legacy for Users (SAFETEA-LU) made a number of	 
changes to the planning and environmental review processes	 
required of state and local transportation agencies. These	 
changes were intended to facilitate more efficient reviews of	 
transportation projects, allowing them to be completed more	 
quickly without diminishing environmental protections. For	 
example, since SAFETEA-LU was enacted, federal law has required  
that state departments of transportation and metropolitan	 
planning organizations (MPO) consult with federal and state	 
resource agencies, among other things, in developing their	 
long-range transportation plans. The law also requires that	 
agencies charged with gaining environmental approval (such as	 
FHWA and the state departments of transportation that sponsor the
projects--called lead agencies) of the most complex highway	 
projects--those requiring environmental impact statements	 
(EIS)--invite resource agencies that have an interest in the	 
project to participate in defining the purpose and need for the  
project, the alternatives to be considered, and the methodology  
for conducting the environmental review. The law also imposes a  
limit of 180 days for the filing of a lawsuit challenging final  
federal agency decisions, including environmental decisions, on a
highway project. These activities were not required before	 
SAFETEA-LU was enacted. Congress asked that we assess whether the
changes Congress envisioned for transportation planning and the  
environmental review and approval of highway projects are being  
effectively carried out. Accordingly, we assessed (1) the	 
progress that selected state departments of transportation, MPOs,
and FHWA have made in incorporating environmental considerations 
in transportation planning and (2) the progress that selected	 
states and FHWA have made in implementing changes in the	 
environmental review of highway projects.			 
-------------------------Indexing Terms------------------------- 
REPORTNUM:   GAO-08-512R					        
    ACCNO:   A81891						        
  TITLE:     Highways and Environment: Transportation Agencies Are    
Acting to Involve Others in Planning and Environmental Decisions 
     DATE:   04/25/2008 
  SUBJECT:   Environmental monitoring				 
	     Environmental policies				 
	     Environmental protection				 
	     Federal aid for highways				 
	     Federal/state relations				 
	     Highway planning					 
	     Performance measures				 
	     Public roads or highways				 
	     Risk assessment					 
	     Risk factors					 
	     Risk management					 
	     Road construction					 
	     Road repairs					 
	     Strategic planning 				 
	     Transportation planning				 
	     Water quality management				 
	     Water quality standards				 
	     Water treatment					 
	     Wildlife						 
	     Wildlife conservation				 
	     program goals or objectives			 

******************************************************************
** This file contains an ASCII representation of the text of a  **
** GAO Product.                                                 **
**                                                              **
** No attempt has been made to display graphic images, although **
** figure captions are reproduced.  Tables are included, but    **
** may not resemble those in the printed version.               **
**                                                              **
** Please see the PDF (Portable Document Format) file, when     **
** available, for a complete electronic file of the printed     **
** document's contents.                                         **
**                                                              **
******************************************************************
GAO-08-512R

   

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. 

GAO-08-512R: 

Washington, DC 20548:
United States Government Accountability Office: 

April 22, 2008: 

The Honorable James M. Inhofe:
Ranking Member:
Committee on Environment and Public Works: United States Senate: 

Subject: Highways and Environment: Transportation Agencies Are Acting 
to Involve Others in Planning and Environmental Decisions: 

Dear Senator Inhofe: 

Meeting the nation's mobility needs requires constructing, improving, 
and repairing roads and bridges. However, these actions can have 
serious environmental impacts, such as harming water quality and 
wildlife and their habitats. The federal government's policy is to 
carry out federally funded highway projects in an environmentally 
responsible manner, as directed by the National Environmental Policy 
Act of 1969 (NEPA) and other environmental and natural resource 
protection laws. The environmental review of projects, as required by 
the act, involves identifying and assessing environmental impacts; 
evaluating alternatives; seeking input, and in some cases approvals, 
from federal and state agencies responsible for natural resources, 
environmental protection, and historic preservation (referred to 
hereafter as resource agencies); and obtaining approval from the 
Federal Highway Administration (FHWA). These reviews provide important 
environmental protections, yet it is generally agreed that it often 
takes too long to complete the most complex highway projects and the 
environmental review is the most time-consuming aspect.[Footnote 1] 

In 2005, the Safe, Accountable, Flexible, and Efficient Transportation 
Equity Act: A Legacy for Users (SAFETEA-LU) made a number of changes to 
the planning and environmental review processes required of state and 
local transportation agencies. These changes were intended to 
facilitate more efficient reviews of transportation projects, allowing 
them to be completed more quickly without diminishing environmental 
protections. For example, since SAFETEA-LU was enacted, federal law has 
required that state departments of transportation and metropolitan 
planning organizations[Footnote 2] (MPO) consult with federal and state 
resource agencies, among other things, in developing their long-range 
transportation plans. The law also requires that agencies charged with 
gaining environmental approval (such as FHWA and the state departments 
of transportation that sponsor the projects--called lead agencies) of 
the most complex highway projects--those requiring environmental impact 
statements (EIS)--invite resource agencies that have an interest in the 
project to participate in defining the purpose and need for the 
project, the alternatives to be considered, and the methodology for 
conducting the environmental review. The law also imposes a limit of 
180 days for the filing of a lawsuit challenging final federal agency 
decisions, including environmental decisions, on a highway project. 
These activities were not required before SAFETEA-LU was enacted. 

You asked that we assess whether the changes Congress envisioned for 
transportation planning and the environmental review and approval of 
highway projects are being effectively carried out. Accordingly, we 
assessed (1) the progress that selected state departments of 
transportation, MPOs, and FHWA have made in incorporating environmental 
considerations in transportation planning and (2) the progress that 
selected states and FHWA have made in implementing changes in the 
environmental review of highway projects. We focused our work on six 
states, which we chose based on geographic diversity and their varying 
amounts of experience with implementing the new transportation planning 
and environmental review requirements. For the most part, our 
assessments were based on interviews of federal, state, and local 
agency officials responsible for the implementation of SAFETEA-LU 
changes within those states, since the agencies were still in the early 
stages of implementing these changes and little data were 
available.[Footnote 3] In addition, as part of our work on changes in 
environmental reviews, we gathered information on the implementation of 
SAFETEA-LU's provisions which allow for state departments of 
transportation to assume responsibility for determining that certain 
highway projects that will not have a significant impact on the 
environment (e.g., maintenance of existing highways) as well as a pilot 
program which allows certain states the ability to assume all or part 
of FHWA's environmental review responsibilities. 

We briefed your office on March 13, 2008, on the results of our work, 
which this report transmits. A copy of the briefing is enclosed. (See 
enclosure I.) The slides have been updated to reflect current status. 

Results in Brief: 

All six state departments of transportation and the six MPOs that we 
contacted are taking or considering initial steps to incorporate 
environmental considerations into long-range transportation planning, 
and FHWA has carried out a number of implementation and educational 
activities to guide their efforts. Four of these agencies (two state 
departments of transportation and two MPOs) have issued long-range 
plans that comply with the post-SAFETEA-LU planning requirements, 
according to FHWA.[Footnote 4] The others expect to do so by 2010, in 
line with their planning cycles. Several of the transportation planners 
and most of the resource agencies[Footnote 5] told us that getting 
early input from resource agencies could be beneficial in identifying 
potentially affected resources at an early stage so that mitigation or 
avoidance measures, if needed, could be identified early. However, they 
cited several challenges in getting such input, most notably (1) the 
limited availability of funding and staff at resource agencies; 
[Footnote 6] (2) limited incentives for resource agencies to contribute 
during planning, since early involvement is not part of these agencies' 
missions or experience; and (3) unfamiliarity on the part of resource 
agencies and planners with each other's roles and processes. State 
department of transportation and MPO planners' progress in developing 
consultation relationships with resource agencies has varied, and those 
that had strong prior relationships with resource agencies are 
advancing more quickly. For example, the North Carolina Department of 
Transportation told us it had started consulting with resource agencies 
as part of its planning process in 2004--before SAFETEA-LU was enacted. 
FHWA's implementation and educational activities include issuing 
regulations and guidance, disseminating leading practices, presenting 
Web-based seminars and other educational activities, and conducting 
oversight of state department of transportation and MPO transportation 
planning activities. State departments of transportation, MPOs, and 
other stakeholders that we contacted generally gave positive reviews of 
FHWA's efforts. According to FHWA officials, because of the long-term 
nature of the transportation planning process, it will likely take 
years before any benefits from these changes are apparent. 

The six state departments of transportation that we contacted are 
implementing the revised environmental review requirements for all 
applicable highway projects, and FHWA has carried out a number of 
activities to promote and guide implementation.[Footnote 7] 
Specifically, for the 24 new highway projects in these states that 
require EISs, these agencies are taking steps to enhance the 
involvement of resource agencies and develop plans to coordinate and 
schedule their involvement. State departments of transportation, 
resource agencies, and other transportation stakeholders recognized 
potential benefits from the 2005 act, such as (1) improved project 
management, (2) an increased likelihood of weeding out flawed 
alternatives early, and (3) increased opportunities for resource 
agencies to be informed and involved. Challenges to implementing the 
post-SAFETEA-LU environmental review requirements in these six states 
include resource agencies' limited resources and limited knowledge 
about their changed role. Some state departments of transportation fund 
positions at resource agencies to help complete environmental reviews, 
using their federal-aid funds, and FHWA is studying best practices for 
doing so. FHWA's implementation and educational activities include 
issuing guidance; conducting outreach to federal, state, and local 
agencies to familiarize them with SAFETEA-LU's changes; disseminating 
leading practices through its Web site; and conducting oversight of the 
environmental review activities of state departments of transportation. 
As with the revised planning provisions, state officials we contacted 
generally viewed FHWA's activities positively. In addition, the agency 
is considering developing performance measures to monitor the 
implementation and impacts of changes made by SAFETEA-LU in 
environmental reviews. However, it will likely take at least 3 to 5 
years before impacts can be determined. 

We provided a draft of this report to the Department of Transportation 
and five federal resource agencies that have been involved in SAFETEA- 
LU implementation and that are responsible for resources important to 
the states we contacted. The department and two of the resource 
agencies agreed with the draft report, while the other three resource 
agencies did not express an overall opinion. 

Background: 

Federal funding for highway projects represents a large investment-- 
about $40 billion in fiscal year 2007. In addition, states will likely 
invest about $8 billion in fiscal year 2007 for federally funded 
highway projects. Federally funded highway projects are typically 
completed in four phases: 

1) Planning: State departments of transportation and MPOs assess the 
need for a project in relation to other potential highway project 
needs. 

2) Preliminary design and environmental review: State departments of 
transportation identify potential solutions based on needs identified 
during planning, potential environmental and social effects, project 
cost, and construction location; identify the effect, if any, of the 
proposed project and of potential alternatives on the environment; and 
select the preferred alternative. 

3) Final design and right-of-way acquisition: State departments of 
transportation finalize design plans, acquire property, and relocate 
residents and businesses. 

4) Construction: State departments of transportation award construction 
contracts, oversee construction, and accept the completed project. 

FHWA plays a key role in funding and overseeing the completion of 
highway projects. In addition to providing financial assistance for 
state departments of transportation to build and improve highways and 
roads, typically equal to about 80 percent of the cost, FHWA 
establishes standards for transportation planning, project design, 
environmental review, and construction. FWHA also provides state 
agencies with planning and design support for federally funded highway 
projects. State departments of transportation, in coordination with 
MPOs, are responsible for planning, designing, and completing these 
projects. 

Federal law requires that state departments of transportation, along 
with MPOs, develop long-range plans, covering at least 20 years, for 
their vision of transportation needs for their states and metropolitan 
areas, respectively. Additionally, state departments of transportation 
and MPOs are required to develop shorter-term transportation plans 
(typically covering 4 years) that identify specific projects to be 
funded.[Footnote 8] 

The review of potential environmental impacts is an important step and 
must be completed before state departments of transportation begin 
building federally funded highway projects or projects that require a 
federal permit or approval.[Footnote 9] Specifically, state departments 
of transportation must assess the consequences of transportation 
projects and possible alternatives on the natural and human (e.g., 
health and community impacts) environment and historic properties. For 
the small number of projects that FHWA deems to have a significant 
impact on the environment--about 7 percent of all highway projects in 
2005 (latest data available)--the state department of transportation 
prepares an EIS, which FHWA must approve before the project can be 
built.[Footnote 10] The EIS describes the project, characterizes the 
surrounding environment, analyzes the environmental impacts of a range 
of project alternatives, and indicates plans for complying with 
environmental laws and mitigating any environmental damage caused by 
the project. (See fig. 1.) Federal resource agencies, such as the Army 
Corps of Engineers, Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS), Environmental 
Protection Agency (EPA), and Advisory Council on Historic Preservation, 
and their state counterparts, participate in and review these detailed 
assessments of environmental impacts, in accordance with their 
responsibilities under federal or state laws. (See table 1 for examples 
of the responsibilities of resource agencies relating to the 
environmental review of federal highway projects.[Footnote 11]): 

Figure 1: Examples of Efforts to Mitigate Potential Harm to Wildlife: 

[See PDF for image] 

This figure contains two photographs of examples of efforts to mitigate 
potential harm to wildlife. 

Source: North Carolina DOT (bear tunnel photograph) and Dr. Tony 
Clevenger, Western Transportation Institute (wolf photograph). 

Measures to mitigate effects on natural resources can be indentified 
early during long-range highway planning or later during environmental 
review of projects. For example, wildlife- such as wolves, bear, and 
deer- may not be able to move safely from one area to another when 
their habitats are disrupted by roads. A passageway in the form of a 
box culvert under the road in an area likely to be used by wildlife was 
a mitigation measure that was used (photo on the left) during the 
construction of a portion on an interstate highway. In the photo on the 
right, a wolf travels safely through its natural habitat using a 
highway underpass. 

[End of figure] 

Table 1: Examples of Federal Resource Agency Responsibilities in 
Environmental Reviews of Highway Projects: 

Agency: Advisory Council on Historic Preservation; 
Responsibility: Reviews and facilitates agreement on projects to ensure 
that preservation values are factored into projects. 

Agency: Army Corps of Engineers; 
Responsibility: Reviews and approves projects, through issuing a 
permit, that affect navigable waters, in coordination with NEPA 
reviews. 

Agency: Environmental Protection Agency; 
Responsibility: Reviews and comments on the environmental impacts of 
major federal actions for which an EIS is required. 

Agency: Fish and Wildlife Service; 
Responsibility: Provides technical assistance to help maintain the 
sustainability of fish and wildlife and their habitats. 

Source: GAO. 

[End of table] 

For federal highway projects requiring an EIS, FHWA is a steward of the 
process and responsible for ensuring that the statement is in 
compliance with applicable environmental laws and other requirements. 
FHWA is the lead federal agency and supports the project applicant-- 
typically the state department of transportation--which participates as 
a joint lead agency. The state department of transportation is 
responsible for producing the environmental documentation for a highway 
project, whereas FHWA guides the process to ensure appropriate scope 
and the content of the documentation. FHWA also is responsible for 
ensuring that the EIS contains documentation on coordination with the 
appropriate federal, state, and local resource agencies and the public. 
EPA is responsible for reviewing and commenting on all major federal 
actions for which an EIS is required and working with FWHA to ensure 
that environmental statutes are met. FHWA has the final approval and 
determines when the statement is in compliance with applicable 
environmental laws and other requirements. 

Because of the complex and often controversial issues involved, the 
data that need to be analyzed, and the number of stakeholders involved, 
it typically takes years for an EIS to be completed and approved. 
According to FHWA, these reviews have taken an average of about 6 years 
since fiscal year 1999 and about 12 percent of them have taken longer 
than 10 years. (See fig. 2.) For EISs approved in 2007, the average 
time taken to complete the statements and gain approval was about 7 
years, according to FHWA.[Footnote 12] 

Figure 2: Completion Times for EISs by Fiscal Year: 

[See PF for image] 

This figure is a multiple line graph depicting the following data: 

Completion Times for EISs by Fiscal Year: 

Fiscal year: 1999; 
Median: 8.3; 
Mean: 6. 

Fiscal year: 2000; 
Median: 5; 
Mean: 5.6. 

Fiscal year: 2001; 
Median: 4.5; 
Mean: 5.3. 

Fiscal year: 2002; 
Median: 6.7; 
Mean: 6.4. 

Fiscal year: 2003; 
Median: 5.6; 
Mean: 6. 

Fiscal year: 2004; 
Median: 4.5; 
Mean: 6. 

Fiscal year: 2005; 
Median: 5; 
Mean: 6.3. 

Fiscal year: 2006; 
Median: 5.1; 
Mean: 6.3. 

Fiscal year: 2007; 
Median: 5.7; 
Mean: 6.75. 

Source: FHWA. 

Note: Completion times are for the year in which the EIS was approved. 
This figure does not include any highway projects requiring EISs 
initiated after the enactment of SAFETEA-LU, because none have 
progressed to this point. 

[End of figure] 

Concerns about the time taken to complete environmental reviews led to 
congressional and executive branch efforts to make environmental 
reviews more efficient and timely without diminishing environmental 
protections. Congress included provisions to make environmental reviews 
more efficient and timely in adopting the 1998 Transportation Equity 
Act for the 21st Century (TEA-21). For example, these provisions 
required FHWA to work cooperatively with federal resource agencies to 
establish project time frames and to meet these agreed-upon time 
frames. The law allows state agencies to participate in these efforts. 
Finally, FHWA may approve requests from states to use their federal-aid 
highway funds to provide additional resource agency personnel dedicated 
to conducting environmental reviews of transportation projects in order 
to expedite these reviews.[Footnote 13] 

SAFETEA-LU made further changes to expedite highway project decision 
making and completion while continuing to ensure environmental 
protection. In the transportation planning stage, the act made changes 
to enhance consideration of environmental issues by states and MPOs 
during planning in order to identify and potentially avoid or minimize 
impacts on resources and thereby facilitate more efficient 
environmental reviews of individual projects. Key changes include the 
following: 

* State departments of transportation and MPOs must consult with 
federal, state and local resource agencies in developing their long-
range transportation plans, using available resource plans and 
data.[Footnote 14] Such consultation was not required before SAFETEA-
LU, but some agencies may have done so. 

* Consultation with resource agencies should include discussions of 
potential environmental mitigation activities, and the results of these 
discussions are to be included in long-range plans. Such consultation 
was not required before SAFETEA-LU. 

In the environmental review stage, the act made changes to enhance the 
involvement of resource agencies, better define roles and 
responsibilities, and limit time frames for challenging agency 
decisions in order to facilitate more efficient and timely decision 
making about highway projects, while protecting environmental 
resources.[Footnote 15] The legislation, however, did not change the 
mission of resource agencies. 

Key changes, which state departments of transportation generally carry 
out with FHWA participation, include the following: 

* Established a new category of involved resource agencies, known as 
participating agencies, which can be any agency with an interest in a 
highway project, allowing involvement from a broader range of 
interested parties. Prior to SAFETEA-LU, agencies with jurisdiction 
either through law or special expertise (called "cooperating agencies") 
were to be involved; SAFETEA-LU broadened participation to include 
those that may not qualify as cooperating agencies but may still have 
an interest in the project. 

* Required plans for coordinating public and agency participation in 
and comment on environmental reviews of projects. Prior to SAFETEA-LU, 
coordination with the public and agencies with jurisdiction was 
required, but plans for this coordination were not required. 

* Provided participating agencies and the public with an opportunity 
for early involvement in defining a project's purpose and need and in 
developing alternatives. This was not required prior to SAFETEA-LU 
although it may have occurred. 

* Encouraged collaboration between state departments of transportation 
and participating agencies on methodologies for conducting 
environmental reviews. This was not required prior to SAFETEA-LU 
although it may have occurred. 

* Imposed a 180-day limit on filing lawsuits that challenge final 
federal agency decisions, including environmental decisions.[Footnote 
16] Prior to SAFETEA-LU, lawsuits could be filed as much as 6 years 
after the decision. 

Through these new transportation planning and environmental review 
requirements, SAFETEA-LU strengthened linkages between (1) 
transportation planning by states and MPOs and (2) environmental issues 
affecting decisions about individual highway projects resulting from 
environmental reviews. The new requirements also provided opportunities 
for resource agencies to play a greater role in these activities to 
achieve more efficient decision making on environmental issues related 
to transportation projects. Overall, these strengthened linkages 
promote a more integrated approach to transportation planning, 
environmental reviews, and the incorporation of resource agency input. 
(See fig. 3.) 

Figure 3: Linkages Encouraged by SAFETEA-LU: 

[See PDF for image] 

This figure is an illustration of the Linkages Encouraged by SAFETEA-
LU: 

Resource agencies: Link to: 
* Statewide and metropolitan transportation planning (Early 
consultation to identify environmental concerns); 
* Individual highway project decisions (Enhanced participation in 
environmental reviews to have better, more efficient decision making on 
environmental issues). 

Statewide and metropolitan transportation planning and Individual 
highway project decisions are linked to one another for greater 
integration of transportation planning and project-level decisions. 

Source: GAO adaptation of FHWA graphic. 

[End of figure] 

SAFETEA-LU added other requirements to make environmental reviews more 
efficient and allow state departments of transportation to assume 
greater responsibility for federal environmental requirements related 
to highway projects. These provisions, among others, include (1) 
allowing state departments of transportation, with FHWA approval and 
monitoring, and using criteria established by FHWA, to assume the 
responsibility for determining whether certain highway projects 
(designated in regulations or approved by FHWA) will not have a 
significant impact on the environment, referred to as categorical 
exclusions;[Footnote 17] and (2) establishing a pilot program--called 
the surface transportation project delivery pilot program--that allows 
up to five designated states, with agreement from FHWA and subject to 
FHWA's periodic review, to assume FHWA's environmental responsibilities 
for highway projects under NEPA and other federal laws.[Footnote 18] 
For a state's assumption of categorical exclusion authority and the 
pilot program, the terms of the state's authority are specified in a 
memorandum of understanding with FHWA. SAFETEA-LU further allows for 
financial assistance to affected federal, state, or tribal agencies to 
support activities that expedite and improve transportation project 
planning and the completion of individual highway projects.[Footnote 
19] 

Agency Comments and Our Evaluation: 

We provided a draft of this report to the Department of Transportation 
and to five federal resource agencies that have been involved in 
SAFETEA-LU implementation and that are responsible for resources 
important to the states we contacted: the Advisory Council on Historic 
Preservation, the Army Corps of Engineers, the Department of the 
Interior, EPA, and the Forest Service. The Department of the Interior 
provided a response for FWS and other agencies of that department that 
we had dealt with. The Advisory Council , Interior, and the Forest 
Service agreed with the draft report, while the other three agencies 
did not express an overall opinion. The Department of Transportation 
and EPA provided several technical and clarifying comments, which we 
included where appropriate. 

Scope and Methodology: 

To determine the progress made in implementing key changes called for 
by SAFETEA-LU in transportation planning to incorporate environmental 
considerations and in environmental reviews of highway projects, we 
reviewed the act and its legislative history and FHWA regulations and 
other guidance and documentation. In addition, we interviewed officials 
of FHWA headquarters, organizations representing transportation and 
environmental interests, FHWA division offices, and state departments 
of transportation and MPOs[Footnote 20] in six states--Alabama, Iowa, 
North Carolina, Ohio, Texas, and Utah. We chose these states based on 
geographic diversity and their varying amounts of experience with 
implementing the new transportation planning and environmental review 
requirements. To determine states' experience with these requirements, 
we considered their level of experience with the development of EISs 
since SAFETEA-LU was enacted, their usage of the 180-day limitation on 
lawsuits challenging highway project environmental approvals since the 
limitation became law, and the extent of the changes the state needed 
to carry out in order to comply with planning and environmental review 
requirements added by SAFETEA-LU.[Footnote 21] We used information from 
the six states for illustrative purposes--we cannot generalize the 
experiences of these states to nationwide efforts. We obtained 
information from one MPO and two to three resource agencies responsible 
for natural and historic resources in each of the six states in our 
study. We chose the MPOs in the most populous, urbanized areas of each 
of the states, potentially with the highest volume of highway projects, 
for our review. We selected resource agencies responsible for resources 
important to the state and also considered their frequency of 
interaction with state departments of transportation and MPOs on 
transportation planning and environmental reviews and chose at least 
one federal resource agency in each of the states. Additionally, we 
interviewed headquarters officials of key federal resource agencies. We 
also interviewed a California Department of Transportation official 
about the department's assumption of all federal environmental review 
responsibilities, since California is the only state to date to assume 
these responsibilities. See enclosure II for a list of organizations 
contacted. 

We gathered much of the information for this report through interviews 
because data on the implementation of SAFETEA-LU's changes are limited. 
In addition, it was not practical to gather information from a large 
number of states and MPOs and resource agencies that interact with 
them. Given that states and MPOs were not required to incorporate 
SAFETEA-LU's transportation planning provisions until they amended or 
updated their transportation plans on or after July 1, 2007, many of 
the states are just starting to implement these provisions. We did not 
review the implementation of significant changes made by SAFETEA-LU in 
environmental review requirements specifically related to public parks 
and historic sites, mainly because the act required that FHWA evaluate 
the implementation of these changes and report to Congress.[Footnote 
22] As part of our overall work, we assessed how FHWA measures progress 
toward improving and expediting environmental review processes under 
SAFETEA-LU. To do this, we interviewed FHWA officials about how the 
agency is monitoring this progress and its plans for any future efforts 
in this area and reviewed agency documents. 

We conducted this performance audit from April 2007 through April 2008 
in accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards. 
Those standards require that we plan and perform the audit to obtain 
sufficient, appropriate evidence to provide a reasonable basis for our 
findings and conclusions based on our audit objectives. We believe that 
the evidence obtained provides a reasonable basis for our findings and 
conclusions based on our audit objectives. 

We are sending copies of this report to congressional committees and 
subcommittees with responsibility for highway infrastructure and 
environmental issues; the Secretary of Transportation; the Secretary of 
Interior; the Administrator, Environmental Protection Agency; the 
Commander, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers; the Executive Director, 
Advisory Council on Historic Preservation; the Chief, Forest Service; 
the Administrator, FHWA; and the Director, Office of Management and 
Budget. We will also make copies available to others upon request. In 
addition, the report will be available at no charge on our Web site at 
[hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov]. 

Should you or your staff have any questions on matters discussed in 
this report, please contact me at (202) 512-2834 or [email protected]. 
Contact points for our Offices of Congressional Relations and Public 
Affairs may be found on the last page of this report. Key contributors 
to this report were Stephanie Fain, Jacqueline Garza, Judy Guillams- 
Tapia, Brandon Haller, Bert Japikse, Marietta Mayfield, Patricia 
McClure, Erica Miles, James Ratzenberger, and Ilga Semeiks. 

Sincerely yours, 

Signed by: 

Katherine A. Siggerud:
Director, Physical Infrastructure Issues: 

Enclosures: 

Enclosure I: 

Briefing for Congressional Staff: 

Highways And Environment: Transportation Agencies Are Acting to Involve 
Others in Planning and Environmental Decisions: 

Objectives: 

With SAFETEA-LU, the Congress made a number of changes to how state 
DOTs and MPOs carry out transportation planning and conduct 
environmental reviews of transportation projects to facilitate quicker 
and more efficient project completion without diminishing environmental 
protections. A key concept was stronger linkages between long-range 
transportation planning and project-level decisions. (See graphic 
below.) We determined (1) the progress that selected states, MPOs, and 
FHWA have made in incorporating environmental considerations in 
transportation planning and (2) the progress selected states and FHWA 
have made in implementing key changes in the environmental review of 
highway projects. 

Scope and Methodology: 

Our work was mainly based on interviews of federal, state, and local 
agency officials, since the agencies were still in the early stages of 
implementing SAFETEA-LU changes and available data were limited. 
Overall, to carry out our work, we (1) reviewed surface transportation 
legal materials, including SAFETEA-LU and FHWA regulations; (2) 
interviewed officials of FHWA headquarters and key stakeholder 
organizations; and (3) interviewed officials of FHWA division offices, 
state DOTs, and MPOs in six statesï¿½Alabama, Iowa, North Carolina, Ohio, 
Texas, and Utahï¿½as well as selected federal and state resource agency 
officials responsible for natural and historic resources in these 
states. In addition, we interviewed California DOT officials about 
Californiaï¿½s assumption of certain authorities for environmental 
reviews. 

Summary of Results: 

All six state DOTs and six MPOs that we contacted are taking or 
considering initial steps to incorporate environmental considerations 
into long-range transportation planning. 

* Four have issued long-range plans that are compliant with the new 
requirements; the others expect to do so by 2010, in line with their 
planning cycles. 

* Challenges include (1) resource agenciesï¿½ limited resources and 
limited incentive to contribute at the planning stage and (2) lack of 
knowledge by resource agencies and planners of each otherï¿½s roles and 
processes. 

* FHWA has undertaken a variety of implementation efforts, such as 
issuing guidance and conducting outreach to affected agencies. State 
DOTs and others we contacted generally gave positive reviews of FHWAï¿½s 
efforts. 

* Because of the long-term nature of the planning process, it will 
likely take years before any benefits of these changes are apparent. 

The six state DOTs are implementing the revised environmental review 
requirements for those new highway projects that require EISs. 

* State DOTs are meeting the new requirements by increasing the 
involvement of resource agencies and the public and preparing plans to 
coordinate this involvement. 

* Challenges include limited resource agency resources and knowledge 
about the revised requirements affecting them. 

* As it has for the planning provisions, FHWA has undertaken a number 
of efforts to implement the environmental review provisions. The state 
officials we contacted generally viewed these efforts positively. 

* In addition, the agency is considering developing performance 
measures to monitor the implementation and impacts of changes made by 
SAFETEA-LU in environmental reviews. However, it will likely take at 
least 3 to 5 years before impacts can be determined. 

Figure: Linkages Encouraged by SAFETEA-LU: 

[See PDF for image] 

This figure is an illustration of the Linkages Encouraged by SAFETEA-
LU: 

Resource agencies: Link to: 
* Statewide and metropolitan transportation planning (Early 
consultation to identify environmental concerns); 
* Individual highway project decisions (Enhanced participation in 
environmental reviews to have better, more efficient decision making on 
environmental issues). 

Statewide and metropolitan transportation planning and Individual 
highway project decisions are linked to one another for greater 
integration of transportation planning and project-level decisions. 

Source: GAO adaptation of FHWA graphic. 

[End of figure] 

Transportation Planning: 

Key Changes: 

State DOTs and MPOs are now required to consult with resource agencies 
about avoiding or mitigating impacts of transportation projects on 
natural and historic resources in developing their long-range 
transportation plans, using available resource plans and data. Resource 
agencies include federal, state, tribal, and local agencies responsible 
for land-use management, natural resources, environmental protection, 
conservation, and historic preservation. Potential environmental 
impacts of transportation projects that are of concern include damage 
to wetlands, waterways, wildlife, and endangered or threatened species. 

Consultation with resource agencies should include discussions of 
potential environmental mitigation activities, and results of these 
discussions are to be included in long-range plans. 

State DOTs and MPOs are not required to update their plans outside of 
their normal planning cycles but must comply when preparing any updates 
of their plans issued after July 1, 2007. 

These provisions were designed to enhance consideration of 
environmental issues in the planning stage to avoid or minimize impacts 
on resources and thereby facilitate more efficient environmental 
reviews of individual projects. 

Overall Assessment of Progress: 

All six states and six MPOs we covered are taking or considering 
initial steps to fulfill transportation planning requirements. 

* Some are further along than others: 
- Two states and two MPOs have issued long-range plans that comply with 
the new requirements, according to FHWA. 
- The others expect to update their plans over the next several years 
(2008-2010). 
- Progress depends on the planning update cycle of individual states 
and MPOs. 

Table: Date of Issued or Expected Long-range Plan Update for the States 
and MPOs We Contacted: 

State: Alabama; 
State DOT: May 2008; 
MPO: June 2009. 

State: Iowa; 
State DOT: September 2008; 
MPO: September 2009. 

State: North Carolina; 
State DOT: 2009 or 2010; 
MPO: June 2009. 

State: Ohio; 
State DOT: July 2007[A]; 
MPO: May 2008. 

State: Texas; 
State DOT: December 2008; 
MPO: June 2007[A]. 

State: Utah; 
State DOT: June 2007[A]; 
MPO: June 2007[A]. 

Source: GAO analysis of information provided by state DOTs, MPOs, and 
FHWA. 

[A] Issued. 

[End of table] 

Progress also depends on the existence and strength of relationships 
between DOTs or MPOs and resource agencies. According to FHWA 
officials, since the planning process is lengthy, nationwide it could 
take until 2009-2010 for most states and MPOs to fulfill these 
requirements. 

* According to FHWA, some DOTs and MPOs updated their plans before the 
July 2007 deadline in order to ï¿½start the clock overï¿½ and give 
themselves more time to meet the new planning requirements. 

* FHWA does not have nationwide data on progress in fulfilling these 
requirements. 

Varied Progress in Consulting with Resource Agencies: 

State DOTs and MPOs we interviewed vary in their progress in developing 
relationships with resource agencies. 

* Some DOTs with strong pre-SAFETEA-LU relationships with resource 
agencies reported not needing to make changes in their processes to 
comply. 
- For example, the North Carolina DOT told us it had begun modifying 
its planning process in 2004 to include consultation with resource 
agencies. 

* Some agencies have already held one or more group meetings with 
resource agencies. 
- For example, the Des Moines Area MPO has recently formed a working 
group of stakeholders, including resource agencies, to discuss issues 
early in the planning process and provide advice. 

* Other agencies have only considered how they might consult with 
resource agencies. 

Some environmental data are available, but data gaps are a concern. 

* A key to incorporating environmental considerations into 
transportation planning is good data on the location of natural, 
historic, and archeological resources, such as wetlands locations. 

* Some planners we contacted are working with resource agencies to get 
or improve maps of resources to be compared with transportation plans. 
- All six states reported some geographic information systems data 
available. [Geographic information systems are computer systems capable 
of capturing, storing, analyzing, and displaying geographic information 
and can be used to compare the location of natural resources to 
transportation plans].
- Most states said they needed better data or were improving their 
data. 

* Data gaps occur because data are: 
- scattered, unavailable, outdated, and incomplete or; 
- withheld (e.g., archaeological data withheld to protect sensitive 
sites). Withheld data can often be obtained by planners, but with 
additional effort. 

* Federal resource agencies have data initiatives that may provide 
support for transportation planning efforts. For example, EPA has 
developed a Web-based geographic information system called ï¿½NEPAssistï¿½ 
that captures resource data throughout the United States in a single 
system and was created to assist agencies participating in 
environmental reviews with the preparation and review of NEPA 
documents. It also may be used by state and MPO transportation planners 
to identify resources that may be impacted by highway projects. A broad 
range of geographic resource information is included, such as the 
location of wetlands and other water resources, wildlife refuges, 
critical habitat for endangered species, federal and state forests, 
archeological sites, and EPA-regulated sites, such as Superfund sites 
and air quality nonattainment areas. EPA has piloted the system in 
several areas and plans to gradually roll it out nationally. 

In addition, progress in developing mitigation strategies among 
planners we contacted is limited because consultations with resource 
agencies are generally in the beginning stages. 

* Most DOTs and MPOs we contacted have not yet held discussions with 
resource agencies on potential mitigation activities. 

* Two DOTs and two MPOs with long-range plans that FHWA has determined 
comply with the changes made by SAFETEA-LU have included these 
discussions in their plans. 

* Planners are required to identify potential environmental mitigation 
activities with resource agencies but are not required to carry out 
these activities. However, some states already have mitigation banks 
that DOTs or MPOs have indicated they could utilize. [Mitigation 
banking is a system in which unavoidable damage to wetlands, waterways, 
habitat, and other natural resources can be compensated for through the 
purchase of credits for the preservation, restoration, or creation of a 
comparable resource elsewhere. Transportation or other developers 
purchase credits from these banks, which assume responsibility for the 
long-term maintenance of these natural resources]. 

Views on Planning Requirements: 

Some transportation planners and most resource agency officials told us 
that early input from resource agencies into planning could be 
beneficial by identifying potentially affected resources at an early 
stage so that mitigation or avoidance measures can be identified early. 

According to FHWA, the changes to the planning process, especially 
consultations with resource agenciesï¿½including discussions of 
environmental mitigationï¿½are intended to produce better and more 
inclusive transportation decision making. FHWA expects that these 
changes will result in better relationships between transportation and 
resource agencies, better transportation projects, more effective 
conservation of natural and cultural resources, and more efficient 
environmental reviews. 

Federal funding for positions at resource agencies for transportation-
related work is available. 

* Since TEA-21, state DOTs have been allowed to use federal-aid highway 
funding for positions at federal and state resource agencies for the 
purpose of conducting environmental reviews of highway projects. State 
DOTs must obtain the approval of FHWA division offices for such uses of 
these funds. In 2005 (the latest data available), 34 states funded 
positions at resource agencies. Many of these positions were funded 
solely with state funds, according to FHWA. One-third of all positions 
were at federal agencies; two-thirds were at state agencies. 

* SAFETEA-LU expanded the possible use of such funded positions to 
include consultation on long-range planning and the development of 
natural resource mapping systems, among other things, as long as these 
funded activities contribute to expediting environmental reviews. 

* SAFETEA-LU did not authorize any additional funds specifically for 
this purpose, however. States proposing to use this authority must take 
the funds out of their normal allocation of federal-aid highway funds. 
As was the case previously, FHWA must approve such uses of these funds. 

Planners and resource agencies generally cited three challenges in 
involving resource agencies in planning. 

(1) Resource agency resources are limited. 

* The primary challenge is limited resource agency resources, including 
funding, staff, and time. 
- This challenge is exacerbated by the one-to-many relationship of 
resource agencies to MPOs. 
- Resource agencies may be inundated with new MPO requests to 
participate in planning. 
- For example, Texas has 25 MPOs, each of which may contact the same 
resource agency. 

Table: Number of MPOs in Each State: 

State: Alabama; 
Number of MPOs: 11. 

State: Iowa; 
Number of MPOs: 9. 

State: Ohio; 17 
Number of MPOs: 17. 

State: North Carolina; 
Number of MPOs: 17. 

State: Texas; 
Number of MPOs: 25. 

State: Utah; 
Number of MPOs: 4. 

Source: FHWA. 

[End of table] 

* States have mixed views on using funded positions at resource 
agencies for planning work. 
- North Carolina DOT, for example, funds 30 positions at resource 
agencies for environmental reviews of highways and hopes to use these 
staff for planning as well. 
- Some states, on the other hand, believe resource agencies should fund 
their own activities. 
- However, most resource agencies we spoke with said that they do not 
have enough resources to carry out their new roles. 

* Also, like resource agencies, MPOs have limited resources to deal 
with their new duties. 

* FHWA recognizes that limited resources and competing priorities may 
hinder resource agenciesï¿½ participation in transportation planning. 
Officials point out that state DOTsï¿½ use of federal-aid funds for 
resource agency positions could be helpful, but the actual use of 
funded positions for transportation planning activities could be 
controversial and remains to be seen, since such positions have been 
used for project-specific environmental review work. FHWA is sponsoring 
a study of how state DOTs manage the resource agency positions they 
fund; this study will cover whether DOTs are using or expect to use 
resource agency positions for transportation planning activities. FHWA 
anticipates that a report will be issued in August 2008. 

(2) Resource agencies may find it difficult to contribute at the 
planning stage. 

* Transportation planning has not been a mission for resource agencies 
and may not be a priority. 
- The enactment of SAFETEA-LU changed agency relationships, but did not 
change resource agency missions. 

* Although state DOTs and MPOs are required to invite resource agencies 
to participate in transportation planning, their participation is not 
required. 
- Historically, resource agencies have been required by law to give 
input at the environmental review stage. 

* Resource agencies are not used to long-range transportation planning. 
- It is difficult for resource agencies to be definitive about possible 
impacts of long-term transportation plans, since these plans are broad 
in scope, covering whole metropolitan areas or states. These agencies 
are used to having project-specific information before signing off on a 
project during environmental review. 

* Some resource agencies do not see the added benefit of giving broader 
planning input when they are already required to give project-specific 
input at the environmental review stage. 

* FHWA officials told us they recognize that providing input into 
transportation planning takes time and may not be in harmony with 
resource agenciesï¿½ missions and need to participate in environmental 
reviews of specific projects. 

(3) Planners sometimes lack knowledge of resource agenciesï¿½ roles and 
processes, and resource agencies sometimes lack knowledge of plannersï¿½ 
roles and processes. 

* Some resource agency offices we contacted lack knowledge of the 
transportation planning process and participants. 
- FHWA has tried to educate resource agencies on changes made by 
SAFETEA-LU through various means, including correspondence, Web-based 
seminar presentations, and workshops. We recognize that it is a 
challenge for FHWA to reach all agency officials that could be affected 
by these changes, given their large number and existence at different 
levels of government. 
- State DOTs also have provided training, such as a forum in Colorado, 
to improve communication among the stateï¿½s transportation planning 
agencies and resource agencies. 

* Some planners we spoke with lack knowledge of who to contact at 
resource agencies. 
- MPOs, which do not generally play a role in environmental reviews, 
may not be familiar with resource agencies and their missions. 

* Some MPOs have raised questions about how to incorporate resource 
agencies into planning, such as how much consultation is enough and 
what to do if resource agencies do not respond. 

* However, the absence of prescriptive requirements provides 
flexibility, which some transportation officials welcome. 

* FHWA has made a number of efforts to inform transportation planners, 
including MPOs, about how best to implement the revised planning 
requirements, as described in the next section. 

Photograph: 

[See PDF for image] 

Source: Harris County Flood Control District; reproduced with 
permission. 

[End of image] 

Consideration of environmental resources in transportation planning can 
result in the early identification of possible adverse effects of 
projects and the identification and eventual implementation of 
mitigation measures to address them. For example, such consideration 
might indicate a need to mitigate runoff from new highways that could 
result in localized flooding or violation of water quality standards. 
One mitigation measure might be to retrofit storm water collection 
systems to capture and pass highway water runoff through a system of 
newly created wetlands. Such a retrofit is shown in the photograph 
above. 

FHWA Actions to Promote and Oversee Implementation: 

FHWA has taken a variety of actions to promote the implementation of 
the revised transportation planning requirements, including: 

* issuing regulations on statewide and metropolitan transportation 
planning in February 2007; 

* providing additional guidance on its Planning and Environmental 
Linkages Web site; 

* conducting outreach to state DOTs, MPOs, and resource agencies to 
familiarize them with the changes made by SAFETEA-LU. These activities 
have included: 
- workshops held in 24 states in which state DOT, MPO, and resource 
agency staff discussed how to strengthen linkages between 
transportation planning and environmental reviews; 
- workshops, held in 5 states to date, that brought together and 
trained resource agencies and state transportation planners to improve 
collaboration and promote data sharing; 
- letters to federal resource agencies notifying them of their new role 
in planning; and; 
- Web-based seminar presentations to EPA and FWS, with plans for 
additional presentations for other federal resource agencies. 

* disseminating leading practices through its Web site as well as 
through funding of a grant program, called Eco-Logical, to support 
innovative efforts; and; 

* funding activities of AASHTOï¿½s Center for Environmental Excellence. 
These activities have included: 
- educating transportation planners and resource agencies about each 
otherï¿½s processes; 
- providing technical assistance to transportation planners, and; 
- developing a practitionerï¿½s handbook for state DOTs and MPOs on 
incorporating environmental considerations into planning. 

FHWA division offices mainly use two methods to oversee implementation: 

* Certification reviews of the planning processes for transportation 
management areas (urbanized areas with populations of over 200,000) are 
FHWAï¿½s main method of determining progress in implementing the new 
planning requirements. [Certification reviews are used to determine 
whether aspects of the planning process are in compliance with the law 
and to identify areas needing improvement. The reviews are conducted 
every 4 years and cover planning by MPOs as well as states]. 

* Approval by division offices of STIPs is another key method of 
overseeing progress. According to FHWA, division offices determine 
whether states are making progress in complying with the revised 
planning requirements in making STIP approval decisions. FHWA does not 
maintain nationwide data on these approvals. However, determinations 
regarding compliance progress are documented in any findings about 
planning that accompany STIP approval. 

We did not evaluate the adequacy of FHWAï¿½s actions to promote or 
oversee the implementation of these SAFETEA-LU provisions. 

DOTsï¿½ and MPOsï¿½ Views on FHWA Actions: 

DOTs and MPOs we contacted generally gave positive reviews of actions 
by FHWA headquarters and division offices. Transportation Planning 
(conï¿½t.) Highways and Environment 

* Generally, the DOTs and MPOs we contacted reported good communication 
or good relationships with FHWA headquarters and division offices. 

State DOTs, MPOs, and resource agencies suggested some further actions 
to facilitate implementation: 

* Expand funding of resource agencies. 

* Provide additional training for resource agencies to familiarize them 
with the revised requirements that affect them. 

* Further clarify what types of activities fulfill the requirement to 
consult with resource agencies. 

* Disseminate more information on leading practices for MPOs. 

As discussed, FHWA is taking a number of actions in these areas and 
recognizes the need for continued efforts to facilitate implementation. 

Time Needed to Show Benefits of SAFETEA-LU Changes: 

According to FHWA, since the transportation planning process is long 
term, it will take some time and a number of planning update efforts 
for the value of these changes to become apparent. 

State and local transportation planners we contacted have mixed views 
on whether the changes made by SAFETEA-LU will improve planning 
outcomes, while resource agencies are generally positive. Some planners 
said that it will be many years before any potential benefits will be 
seen. 

[End of section] 

Environmental Review: 

Key Changes: 

SAFETEA-LU defined roles and responsibilities and enhanced resource 
agency and public involvement during environmental reviews by: 

* establishing a new category of resource agency involvement, known as 
participating agencies; 

* requiring plans for coordinating and scheduling agency and public 
participation, known as coordination plans; 

* requiring opportunities for early involvement of resource agencies 
and the public in defining a projectï¿½s purpose and need and in 
developing alternatives; 

* requiring collaboration with resource agencies on methodologies for 
conducting environmental reviews. 

These changes apply to projects requiring an EIS for which reviews were 
initiated after the law was enacted. 

The overall intent of these provisions was to facilitate more efficient 
and timely project decision making while protecting environmental 
resources. 

Overall Assessment of Progress: 

From August 2005, when SAFETEA-LU was enacted, through December 2007, 
109 new projects nationwide had been identified as requiring an EIS, 
according to FHWA. The environmental reviews for these projects must 
follow revised requirements. These projects are moving through the 
stages of preparing an EIS, which, on average, takes over 6 years. 
[Footnote 23] As of December 2007, 2 projects had reached the final EIS 
stage and 2 more had reached the draft EIS stage. 

In the six states that we contacted, 30 new projects were identified as 
requiring an EIS during this period. 

* Of these, 24 are actively moving forward in the post-SAFETEA-LU 
environmental review process; the remaining 6 are on hold or are being 
canceled. 

* A draft EIS has been prepared for 1 of these projects. 

Table: Number of Active EIS Projects Subject to SAFETEA-LU 
Requirements, as of December 2007: 

State: Alabama; 
Number: 2. 

State: Iowa; 
Number: 4. 

State: North Carolina; 
Number: 6. 

State: Ohio; 
Number: 2. 

State: Texas; 
Number: 5. 

State: Utah; 
Number: 5. 

State: Total; 
Number: 24. 

Source: State DOTs and FHWA. 

[End of table] 

State DOTs Are Completing New Required Steps: 

The state DOTs that we contacted have taken a number of actions to 
complete required steps as they develop EISs for the 24 active 
projects. 

* All six state DOTs have invited participating agencies to be involved 
in environmental reviews and have developed coordination plans. 

* All six states also are working to provide opportunities for agencies 
and the public to be involved early in defining their projectsï¿½ purpose 
and need and the alternatives to be considered and to collaborate with 
agencies in developing review methodologies. 

* The 24 projects are at different stages, so a few have not yet 
completed each step, as shown in the following table. 

Table: Total Number of EIS Projects in Six States for Which Key Steps 
Required by SAFETEA-LU Have Been Completed, as of December 2007: 

Step: Invite participating agencies; 
Total: 23. 

Step: Develop coordination plan; 
Total: 23. 

Step: Involve agencies and public in defining purpose and need; 
Total: 22. 

Step: Involve agencies and public in developing the range of 
alternatives; 
Total: 20. 

Step: Collaborate with agencies on review methodology; 
Total: 22. 

Step: Total number of active EIS projects subject to SAFETEA-LU 
requirements; 
Total: 24. 

Source: GAO analysis of information provided by state DOTs and FHWA. 

[End of table] 

* Although these states had varied ways of conducting environmental 
reviews, most believed they did not need to make major changes to their 
existing processes to comply with the requirements added by SAFETEA-LU. 
For example, prior to SAFETEA-LU, some states (Iowa, North Carolina, 
and Ohio) had already developed processes that provided early 
opportunities for resource agencies and the public to be involved. 

Early participation by resource agencies in environmental reviews of 
highway projects may help identify and mitigate possible harmful 
environmental effects. For example, resource agencies may identify the 
possibility of erosion and sedimentation into trout streams. Specific 
mitigation measures, such as sediment basins like this one to catch 
runoff, could be identified during environmental review and 
subsequently be implemented during construction. 

Photograph: 

{See PDF for image] 

Photo of sediment basin. 

Source: North Carolina DOT. 

[End of image] 

Views on Environmental Review Requirements: 

State DOTs, resource agencies, and other transportation stakeholders we 
contacted recognized some potential benefits of post-SAFETEA-LU changes 
in environmental reviews, including: 

* improved project management; 

* increased likelihood of weeding out flawed alternatives early, and; 

* better informed and more involved resource agencies. 

According to FHWA, these changes institutionalize more disciplined 
project management, essentially ï¿½tightening upï¿½ the environmental 
review process. In addition, these changes put FHWA in a stronger 
management role. State DOTs and resource agencies cited four main 
challenges in their efforts to implement the post-SAFETEA-LU changes in 
environmental reviews. 

(1) Resource agency resources are limited. 

* Resource agencies cited their core regulatory duties as their main 
responsibility and told us that resource constraints hamper their 
ability to take on extra responsibilities. These constraints may limit 
their ability to fully participate in the early stages of environmental 
reviews. 

* FHWA recognizes that resource constraints may limit the ability of 
resource agencies to participate more fully in environmental reviews. 
FHWA officials noted that some state DOTs fund positions at resource 
agencies, using federal-aid funds, while others do not. AASHTO plans to 
survey states by the summer of 2008 to obtain updated information on 
the extent to which state DOTs fund positions at resource agencies. As 
noted previously, FHWA is sponsoring a study of how states manage these 
positions; this study will identify useful practices, including 
practices for evaluating the services performed. 

(2) Resource agenciesï¿½ and local public authoritiesï¿½ knowledge of post-
SAFETEA-LU requirements is incomplete. 

* Many resource agencies we contacted told us that they need more 
education and training on the changes. 

* Some local public authorities leading EIS projects that we contacted 
say they have received limited guidance or training from state DOT and 
FHWA officials on how to implement the revised requirements. 

* FHWA officials have told us that they are aware of these needs and 
therefore have made and continue to make efforts to educate resource 
agencies and other stakeholders on the new requirements, through Web-
based seminars, for example. 

(3) Existing processes must be adapted to meet the revised 
requirements. 

* Some state DOTs said they have had difficulty reaching agreement with 
FHWA division offices on the extent to which their existing processes 
need to be changed to comply. 

* FHWA officials told us that determining whether or not state DOT 
processes are compliant has presented a challenge in some cases. For 
example, some states have maintained that their existing environmental 
review processes do not need to be changed because they are already in 
compliance with post-SAFETEA-LU requirements. 

* States that re-engineered their environmental review process under 
certain provisions in TEA-21 could request a ï¿½grandfatheringï¿½ exemption 
to continue operating under their pre-SAFETEA-LU processes. Only 
Florida requested this exemption and this request was approved by FHWA. 
Some of the states we covered had made major changes in their 
environmental review processes prior to SAFETEA-LU. One state DOT 
official told us that his agency did not request this exemption because 
complying with the SAFETEA-LU requirements did not negatively impact 
its processes and it would not have been worthwhile to make such a 
request. An official from another state DOT told us that the DOT 
decided to make required changes, which were not substantial, to its 
process in order to realize potential efficiencies. 

4) Documentation requirements have increased. 

* Some state DOTs and local public agencies we contacted are concerned 
that requirements for more correspondence with resource agencies and 
the public, as well as a documented coordination plan, create an 
increased paperwork burdenï¿½slowing down their efforts to complete 
environmental reviews. 

* Some state DOTs also expressed a concern that the additional 
paperwork burden could open them to lawsuits if this paperwork is 
considered deficient in any way. 

* Some transportation officials in the states we covered believe that 
changes in the environmental review process can result in better 
project decisions. However, some cautioned that the process will not 
necessarily be more efficient or timely since the extra steps required 
to comply with the environmental review provisions add time to 
environmental reviews. 

* FHWA headquarters officials told us that they had heard indirectly of 
such concerns but do not believe that the additional documentation 
requirements are overly burdensome. They noted that the new documents 
required, especially the coordination plan, help to achieve better 
management and oversight of projects. 

Use of 180-Day Limitation Is Varied 

* According to FHWA, the 180-day statute of limitations had been used 
96 times as of December 2007. FHWA does not have information on the 
number of projects for which a decision was taken but no published 
notice given. [SAFETEA-LU also placed a 180-day limit on lawsuits 
challenging final federal agency environmental decisionsï¿½such as the 
approval of an EISï¿½on highway projects, when notices of those decisions 
are published in the Federal Register. FHWA has interpreted this 
provision so as to give it and state DOTs discretion in deciding 
whether, and when, to apply this limit to highway project decisions]. 

* The 180-day limitation has been used to a varying degree in the six 
states to limit lawsuits challenging federal decisions on highway 
projects. (See table below.) Most limitations apply to decisions made 
between 2005 and 2007. FHWA has interpreted this provision to also 
allow its use for final agency decisions made before SAFETEA-LU was 
enacted. Some limitations have been applied to decisions made as far 
back as 1990. 

Table: Extent of Use of the 180-Day Statute of Limitations in the Six 
States, as of December 2007: 

State: Alabama; 
Number of projects to which the limitation was applied: [A]. 

State: Iowa; 
Number of projects to which the limitation was applied: [A]. 

State: North Carolina; 
Number of projects to which the limitation was applied: 4. 

State: Ohio; 
Number of projects to which the limitation was applied: 6. 

State: Texas; 
Number of projects to which the limitation was applied: 12. 

State: Utah; 
Number of projects to which the limitation was applied: 8. 

State: Total: 
Number of projects to which the limitation was applied: 30. 

Source: FHWA. 

[A] Not applied. 

[End of table] 

* Officials from one state told us that they determine whether to ask 
FHWA to trigger the statute of limitations (by publishing a notice) on 
a project-by-project basis and did not make broader use of this 
provision in order to avoid the unintended consequence of encouraging 
litigation. Officials from another state said that they have plans to 
use the provision for all eligible projects. 

* Some transportation officials in the states we covered noted that the 
new statute of limitations could lead to cost savings. It limits 
lawsuits to a period when it would not cost as much to change project 
plans and, after this period, work can proceed on a project without the 
risk of lawsuit. They did not cite challenges in implementing the 
statute of limitations. 

Assessment of Progress in State Assumption of Categorical Exclusion 
Authority: 

Some states are pursuing increased responsibilities for categorical 
exclusions, but overall interest has been limited. 

* To date, only the California DOT has assumed authority for 
categorical exclusions and, in addition, according to FHWA, only the 
Utah DOT and the Alaska DOT are actively seeking this same authority. 

* Several state DOTs we contacted did not see a need to take on the 
authority to approve categorical exclusions because they were using 
programmatic agreements with FHWA and resource agencies that streamline 
review and approvals for many projects classified as categorical 
exclusions. 

* State DOTs also identified the requirement to waive sovereign 
immunity as an obstacle to taking advantage of the categorical 
exclusion approval authority. 
- Some states were interested in applying for categorical exclusion 
approval authority (e.g., Ohio and Texas), but the state DOTs were not 
able to rally enough support in their state legislatures to waive 
sovereign immunity, as required to assume approval authority for 
categorical exclusions. 

* In discussing with resource agency officials their views on states 
assuming responsibility for categorical exclusion decisions, most did 
not express any concern about this change. However, officials from one 
agency said that state assumption of responsibility for these decisions 
could decrease input from resource agencies in addressing environmental 
concerns. 

Other Key Changes: 

Approximately 90 percent of all surface transportation projects have 
minimal environmental impacts and therefore receive ï¿½categorical 
exclusions,ï¿½ qualifying them for limited environmental review. 

SAFETEA-LU allowed state DOTs to assume the responsibility for 
determining whether certain highway projects can receive a categorical 
exclusion, in accordance with criteria to be established by FHWA and 
with FHWA in a monitoring role. States can assume this responsibility 
after waiving their sovereign immunity and entering into a memorandum 
of understanding with FHWA. The intent of this change is to reduce 
processing time for categorical exclusions. 

A pilot programï¿½called the surface transportation project delivery 
pilot programï¿½has been established to allow up to five states (to 
include, if interested: Alaska, California, Ohio, Oklahoma, and Texas) 
to assume FHWAï¿½s environmental responsibilities for highway projects 
under NEPA and other federal laws, after entering into a memorandum of 
understanding with FHWA and with continuing oversight by the agency. 
This program is designed to provide information on whether delegating 
these responsibilities to the states will result in more efficient 
environmental reviews while meeting all federal requirements for these 
reviews. 

Assessment of Pilot Program Progress: 

Assessment of Pilot Program Progress: 

To date, only the California DOT has received FHWA approval to 
participate in the surface transportation project delivery pilot 
program. 

* Ohio and Texas declined to participate because their state 
legislatures did not approve a waiver of sovereign immunity, which is 
required for participation in the program. 

* According to FHWA, Alaska and Oklahoma are still interested and may 
decide to participate. Alaska is waiting until it has completed a 
memorandum of understanding with FHWA on the authority for categorical 
exclusions, and Oklahoma is seeking the approval it needs from its 
legislature to waive sovereign immunity. 

The California DOT began the pilot program on July 1, 2007, and has 
taken steps to implement its new authorities. 

* It added a NEPA quality control review step to its process, in which 
specialists use the same criteria that FHWA would have used to review 
the state DOTï¿½s EIS. 

* These specialists must (1) meet qualification standards and (2) 
complete a 3-day training course co-facilitated by the California DOT 
and FHWA division staff. 

* It created a NEPA Delegation Manager position to act as the point 
person for all delegation responsibilities. 

After Ohio and Texas declined to participate, FHWA issued a Federal 
Register notice in July 2007 soliciting interest from other states to 
participate in the program and conducted outreach at national meetings. 

* According to FHWA officials, no states have expressed interest. 

* FHWA officials told us that they believe concern about the need to 
waive sovereign immunity is the main reason for the lack of interest, 
but that states also are concerned about the amount of work required to 
set up such a program and want to wait and see how the program works in 
California. 

According to state and FHWA officials we spoke with, an additional 
reason why states have not pursued either of these new authorities is 
that, to avoid conflicts of interest, FHWA has prohibited state DOTs 
with these authorities from making advance purchases of rights of way 
for highway projects. According to FHWA, this practice presents a 
conflict of interest because the state then has a stake in 
environmental decisions. 

* States sometimes make such advance purchases in order to accelerate 
the completion of a project and avoid inflation. According to some 
state officials, not being able to make such advance purchases would 
increase the time and cost associated with completing projects. 

* According to FHWA officials, they suggested that state DOTs develop a 
ï¿½firewallï¿½ to divide those who make environmental review decisions from 
those who purchase rights of way, but states indicated that they could 
not do this. 

* In discussing with resource agency officials their views about the 
pilot program, they expressed little or no concern about it. Officials 
in several agencies noted that this program could be beneficial. For 
example, one official said that environmental reviews of projects could 
be more efficient with a reduced FHWA role. 

FHWA Actions to Promote and Oversee Implementation: 

FHWA has taken a variety of actions to promote the implementation of 
the post-SAFETEA-LU changes in environmental reviews, including: 

* issuing various types of guidance on the implementation of these 
provisions and posting this guidance on its Environmental Review 
Toolkit Web site; 

* proposing revised regulations for environmental reviews and issuing a 
regulation regarding the surface transportation project delivery pilot 
program; 

* conducting outreach to federal, state, and local agencies involved in 
environmental reviews to familiarize them with the post-SAFETEA-LU 
changes through training (both in person and via Webcast), conference 
presentations, and technical assistance; 

* disseminating leading practices through its Web site; and; 

* funding activities of AASHTOï¿½s Center for Environmental Excellence, 
including; 
- issuing a new practitionerï¿½s guide on the revised environmental 
review requirements and; 
- identifying leading practices in implementing these requirements to 
put on the Centerï¿½s Web site. 

FHWA oversees implementation mainly by conducting: 

* day-to-day oversight of state DOT environmental review activities 
through, for example, division office review and approval of EISs and 
monitoring of statesï¿½ assumption of responsibility for categorical 
exclusions; 

* reviews by FHWA attorneys of the legal sufficiency of EISs, including 
compliance with the new requirements, as applicable; and; 

* audits of statesï¿½ performance in the surface transportation project 
delivery pilot program. The first audit, of California DOTï¿½s 
performance in the pilot program, was conducted in January 2008, and 
the report is scheduled to be completed by June 2008. We did not 
evaluate the adequacy of FHWAï¿½s actions to promote or oversee the 
implementation of these changes. 

Views on FHWA Actions: 

Transportation officials and other stakeholders we contacted generally 
gave positive reviews of FHWAï¿½s efforts to inform them about the key 
SAFETEA-LU changes in environmental reviews. 

The state DOTs, local public agencies responsible for environmental 
reviews, and resource agencies we contacted suggested possible 
additional actions to further facilitate implementation of the changes 
made by SAFETEA-LU. As for transportation planning, expanded funding of 
and training for resource agencies were suggested. In addition, they 
cited the following actions: 

* Some state officials told us that they would like more flexibility to 
follow their pre-SAFETEA-LU processes, which they say accomplish the 
actï¿½s goals and the new requirements in spirit. 

* Some states have also suggested that, to increase statesï¿½ interest in 
assuming authority for categorical exclusions and in participating in 
the pilot program, the requirement to waive sovereign immunity could be 
eliminated and states could be allowed to make advance purchases of 
rights of way and to assume the associated risk. 

FHWAï¿½s views on concerns raised by various stakeholders and the 
agencyï¿½s efforts to address them were discussed above. 

The various environmental review changes made by SAFETEA-LU were 
designed to achieve more efficient and timely project decision making, 
particularly for projects undergoing an EIS review, while maintaining 
environmental protections. 

FHWA Efforts to Track Progress: 

According to FHWA data, since fiscal year 1999, EIS reviews have 
averaged between 5 and 7 years to complete and over 12 percent of them 
have taken longer than 10 years. 

Figure: Completion Times for EISs by Fiscal Year: 

Fiscal year: 1999; 
Median: 8+; 
Mean: 6. 

Fiscal year: 2000; 
Median: 5; 
Mean: 5+. 

Fiscal year: 2001; 
Median: 4+; 
Mean: 5+. 

Fiscal year: 2002; 
Median: 7; 
Mean: 6+. 

Fiscal year: 2003; 
Median: 6; 
Mean: 6+. 

Fiscal year: 2004; 
Median: 4+; 
Mean: 6. 

Fiscal year: 2005; 
Median: 5; 
Mean: 6+. 

Fiscal year: 2006; 
Median: 5; 
Mean: 6+. 

Fiscal year: 2007; 
Median: 5+; 
Mean: 6+. 

Source: FHWA. 

Note: Completion times are for the year in which the EIS was approved. 
This figure does not include any highway projects requiring EISs 
initiated after the enactment of SAFETEA-LU, because none have 
progressed to this point. 

[End of figure] 

* FHWA currently has two main methods for monitoring progress in 
expediting and improving environmental reviews:[Footnote 24] 
- measures of the timeliness of EIS completion, based on data collected 
by its division offices, and; 
- measures of the quality of interagency coordination, based on 
surveys, conducted in 2003 and 2006, of resource and transportation 
agency staff views on environmental reviews of transportation projects. 
- These measures covered a range of topics, such as whether 
communication among agencies was sufficient, how well transportation 
staff protected the environment, and whether reviews were completed in 
a reasonable amount of time. 

* FHWA also has related environmental measures, such as measures of 
efforts to reduce pollution and other adverse environmental effects 
from transportation projects.[Footnote 25] These include: 
- the number of exemplary context-sensitive solution projects and 
programs and; [According to FHWA, its context-sensitive solutions 
initiative is a collaborative, interdisciplinary approach that involves 
all stakeholders to develop a transportation facility that fits its 
physical setting and preserves scenic, aesthetic, historic, and 
environmental resources while maintaining safety and mobility]; 
- the number of areas not meeting mobile source emissions targets in 
their state implementation plans[Footnote 26] (goal is to minimize this 
number). 

Measures Being Considered: 

* FHWA is planning and considering developing several other measures 
specifically to track progress in implementing, and the impacts of, 
changes made by SAFETEA-LU in environmental reviews. (See following 
table.) 

Table: New Environmental Review Performance Measures Related to SAFETEA-
LU That Are under Consideration: 

Type of measure: Timeliness of EISs; 
Description of measure: Median EIS completion time for projects 
undergoing environmental review under the post-SAFETEA-LU EIS process; 
Status: Plans to report results of such a measure starting in fiscal 
year 2009 in agency performance reports and on its Web site. 

Type of measure: Quality of interagency coordination; 
Description of measure: Inclusion of questions related to 
implementation of the post-SAFETEA-LU EIS process in follow-on survey 
of resource and transportation agency environmental review staff; 
Status: May repeat survey in 2009 and may include such questions and 
their responses in final report on survey. 

Type of measure: Compliance with new requirements; 
Description of measure: Statesï¿½ implementation of new steps required 
under the post-SAFETEA-LU EIS process and ratings of the effectiveness 
of various aspects of this process, based on information collected semi-
annually; 
Status: Has started to develop such measures and plans to include 
results in report to Congress on the effectiveness of SAFETEA-LU 
environmental provisions and on its Web site. 

Source: GAO analysis of information provided by FHWA. 

[End of table] 

* In addition, FHWA is tracking, for internal management use, the 
number of projects for which 180-day limitation on claims notices has 
been filed in order to monitor the use of this limitation. 

Studies and Reviews Underway or Planned: 

* The agency also is sponsoring several studies and reviews that may 
provide additional information on progress in implementing, as well as 
impacts of, SAFETEA-LU changes in environmental reviews. (See following 
table.) 

Table: Key FHWA Initiatives That May Provide Information on the 
Implementation and Impacts of SAFETEA-LU Changes in Environmental 
Reviews: 

Type of initiative: Timeliness of EISs; 
Description: In March 2007, FHWA piloted this standard tool in five 
states. All state DOTs and FHWA division offices can now use this tool, 
which is in a checklist format, to monitor the implementation of 
recommended environmental review activitiesï¿½including post-SAFETEA-LU 
requirementsï¿½and identify successful practices and opportunities for 
improvement; 
Status: Underway; FHWA is encouraging the voluntary use of the tool. 

Type of initiative: Monitoring of statesï¿½ assumption of responsibility 
for categorical exclusions; 
Description: FHWA will monitor the compliance of states with the 
memorandums of understanding (MOU) they enter into with the agency and 
will consider the results in deciding whether to renew the MOU. 
Monitoring will include measures of various aspects of MOU compliance 
and performance, including timeliness; 
Status: Underway; first report, on the California DOT, expected in 
spring 2008. 

Type of initiative: Audits of the California DOTï¿½s performance in 
surface transportation project delivery pilot program; 
Description: FHWA will conduct audits of the California DOT to ensure 
compliance in meeting all federal laws for which the state has been 
assigned responsibility. FHWA will conduct semi-annual audits during 
the first 2 years and annual audits thereafter. Audits will include 
measures of various aspects of performance, including timeliness; 
Status: Underway; first report expected in June 2008. 

Source: GAO analysis of information provided by FHWA. 

[End of table] 

In Time, Measures and Studies Should Show Impacts: 

* As can be seen from the information presented, FHWA is making a 
number of efforts to track progress in improving and expediting 
environmental reviews. However, its efforts to specifically measure or 
study the implementation and impacts of changes made by SAFETEA-LU are 
in the early stages of development or implementation, and it is too 
early to assess them. 

* FHWA anticipates that the results of new measures and studies related 
to SAFETEA-LU will start becoming available during the next year or 
two. 

* Agency headquarters officials also noted that it will take at least 3 
to 5 years before the effects of the actï¿½s changes in the environmental 
review process can begin to be discerned. 

* Some other transportation stakeholders we interviewed agreed that it 
will take years to see the effects of the new requirements because the 
environmental review process is lengthy and it will take some time to 
get the current highway projects through the entire process. 

[End of enclosure] 

Enclosure II: 

Organizations Contacted: 

In performing our work we contacted the following agencies and 
organizations: 

Federal Transportation and Resource Agencies: 

Advisory Council on Historic Preservation; 
Bureau of Indian Affairs; 
Department of the Interior; 
Department of Transportation; 
Environmental Protection Agency; 
Federal Highway Administration; 
Fish and Wildlife Service; 
Forest Service; 
National Park Service; 
Army Corps of Engineers; 
National Marine Fisheries Service. 

State Transportation Agencies: 

Alabama Department of Transportation; 
California Department of Transportation; 
Iowa Department of Transportation; 
North Carolina Department of Transportation; 
Ohio Department of Transportation; 
Texas Department of Transportation; 
Utah Department of Transportation. 

State Resource Agencies: 

Alabama Department of Environmental Management; 
North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources; 
Ohio Environmental Protection Agency; 
State Historical Society of Iowa; 
Texas Commission on Environmental Quality; 
Texas Parks and Wildlife Department; 
Utah State Historic Preservation Office. 

Metropolitan Planning Organizations: 

Birmingham Metropolitan Planning Organization; 
Des Moines Area Metropolitan Planning Organization; 
Mid-Ohio Regional Planning Commission; 
North Carolina Capital Area Metropolitan Planning Organization; 
North Central Texas Council of Governments; 
Wasatch Front Regional Council. 

Local Public Agencies and Consultants: 

Houston Grand Parkway Association; 
North Carolina Turnpike Authority; 
Solid Civil Design; 
Snyder and Associates, Inc. 

Other Organizations: 

Association of Metropolitan Planning Organizations; 
American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials;
Defenders of Wildlife; 
Environmental Defense; 
National Conference of State Historic Preservation Officers; 
National Trust for Historic Preservation; 

[End of enclosure] 

Footnotes: 

[1] GAO, Highway Infrastructure: Perceptions of Stakeholders on 
Approaches to Reduce Highway Project Completion Time, GAO-03-398 
(Washington, D.C.: Apr. 9, 2003). 

[2] MPOs are organizations that include representatives of local 
governments for the purpose of transportation planning and coordination 
of highway and transit projects. According to FHWA, there are almost 
400 MPOs nationwide. 

[3] We interviewed state department of transportation officials; one 
MPO in the most populous, urbanized area in each state; and officials 
of two to three federal and state resource agencies responsible for 
resources within each state. See the scope and methodology section at 
the end of this letter on why our work was limited to a small number of 
states and MPOs and for further information on how we selected states 
and agencies to cover. 

[4] FHWA does not collect this information nationwide. 

[5] Because we performed our work at a small number of states and MPOs 
(six of each), for the most part we did not attempt to quantify our 
findings. 

[6] Federal funding is available for transportation-related positions 
at resource agencies and, if approved by FHWA, is taken out of the 
state's normal share of federal-aid highway funds. In 2005, the 
American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials 
(AASHTO) surveyed all 50 states and reported that 68 percent of them 
fund positions at resource agencies. Two-thirds of these positions were 
at state resource agencies and the remainder were at federal resource 
agencies. 

[7] According to FHWA, 109 projects nationwide fall under these 
requirements. 

[8] The state departments of transportation develop Statewide 
Transportation Improvement Programs (STIP). MPOs develop similar short- 
term plans, called Transportation Improvement Programs, which feed into 
the STIPs. 

[9] Permits are written approvals for projects which may impact the 
environment. For example, permits would be required for highway 
projects that potentially impact water quality. 

[10] For highway projects for which there is no significant 
environmental impact, the time required for environmental approval is 
much less. A highway project that is expected to have a minimal 
environmental impact may qualify for a categorical exclusion, requiring 
a more limited environmental review. Categorical exclusions represent 
84 percent of highway projects. If it is unclear whether a project will 
have a significant environmental impact, the state department of 
transportation must conduct an environmental assessment (9 percent of 
highway projects), which currently takes a median time of 26 months to 
complete, according to FHWA. 

[11] See app. II of GAO, Highway Infrastructure: Stakeholders' Views on 
Time to Conduct Environmental Reviews of Highway Projects, GAO-03-534 
(Washington, D.C.: May 23, 2003), for examples of other resource 
agencies that may play a role in the environmental review of highway 
projects. 

[12] We have reported on issues involving environmental reviews in 
transportation planning and the time taken to complete environmental 
reviews; see GAO, Transportation Planning: State and Metropolitan 
Planning Agencies Report Using Varied Methods to Consider Ecosystem 
Conservation, GAO-04-536 (Washington, D.C.: May 17, 2004); GAO-03-534; 
Environmental Protection: Federal Planning Requirements for 
Transportation and Air Quality Protection Could Potentially Be More 
Efficient and Better Linked, GAO-03-581 (Washington, D.C.: Apr. 28, 
2003); and GAO-03-398. 

[13] In addition, Executive Order 13274 was issued in 2002 to promote 
the development and implementation of transportation infrastructure 
projects in an efficient and environmentally sound manner. An 
interagency task force oversees the implementation of the order and 
monitors the environmental reviews of certain high-priority projects. 
This task force is composed of officials from the Departments of 
Agriculture, Commerce, Interior, Defense, and Transportation; EPA; the 
Advisory Council on Historic Preservation; and the Council on 
Environmental Quality. 

[14] States and MPOs are not required to update their long-range plans 
out of their normal planning cycles to comply with SAFETEA-LU changes, 
but must comply in any update of their plans after July 1, 2007. 

[15] These changes apply to projects for which environmental impact 
statement reviews were initiated after the law was enacted. 

[16] The 180-day limitation is triggered by the publication of a notice 
in the Federal Register announcing a final federal agency action, such 
as the issuance of a permit or approval. FHWA division offices, in 
consultation with state departments of transportation and other joint 
lead agencies, decide whether to publish this notice. FHWA's 
interpretation of this provision gives it and state departments of 
transportation discretion in deciding whether, and when, to apply this 
limit to highway project decisions. 

[17] To assume this responsibility, the state department of 
transportation must waive its sovereign immunity and enter into a 
memorandum of understanding with FWHA. Sovereign immunity refers to 
governments', including state governments', right not to be sued 
without consent. 

[18] These states, if interested in participating in the pilot program, 
include Alaska, California, Ohio, Oklahoma, and Texas. 

[19] This requirement explicitly authorizes funding for a broader set 
of activities than did TEA-21, but retains similar conditions on the 
approval of funding. Funding may now be used for a variety of project- 
specific and more general activities--including transportation 
planning--as long as these activities contribute to expediting the 
review of projects that are subject to the revised environmental review 
process. 

[20] We did not discuss the implementation of environmental review 
requirements added by SAFETEA-LU with MPOs, since they generally are 
not involved in these reviews. 

[21] We excluded two leading states, California and Florida, from the 
above efforts. California has unique state requirements and procedures 
for planning and environmental reviews. FHWA exempted Florida from the 
new environmental review provisions. States that re-engineered their 
environmental review process to streamline transportation decision 
making under section 1309 of TEA-21 could request a "grandfathering" 
exemption to continue operating under their pre-SAFETEA-LU processes. 
Only Florida requested this exemption and this request was approved by 
FHWA. 

[22] FHWA is planning to provide its first such report to Congress in 
November 2008. 

[23] This figure applies to projects for which EIS reviews were 
completed in fiscal year 2007. 

[24] FHWA has performance goals related to the EIS completion time 
measures and the results of these measures are reported in its budget 
request and on its Web site, among other places. The quality of 
interagency coordination measures are published in a report on these 
survey results. See Gallup Organization, Final Report: Implementing 
Performance Measurement in Environmental Streamlining (Washington, 
D.C., May 2007). 

[25] FHWA has performance goals related to these measures and reports 
its results in its budget request and in Performance and Accountability 
Reports of the U.S. DOT, among other places. 

[26] These plans are air quality plans that explain how an area that is 
not in compliance with the requirements of the Clean Air Act will come 
into compliance. 

[End of section] 

GAO's Mission: 

The Government Accountability Office, the audit, evaluation and 
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 GAO's Web site [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov]. Each 
weekday, GAO posts newly released reports, testimony, and 
correspondence on its Web site. To have GAO e-mail you a list of newly 
posted products every afternoon, go to [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov] 
and select "E-mail Updates." 

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. Government Accountability 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: [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/fraudnet/fraudnet.htm]: 
E-mail: [email protected]: 
Automated answering system: (800) 424-5454 or (202) 512-7470: 

Congressional Relations: 

Ralph Dawn, Managing Director, [email protected]: 
(202) 512-4400: 
U.S. Government Accountability Office: 
441 G Street NW, Room 7125: 
Washington, D.C. 20548: 

Public Affairs: 

Chuck Young, Managing Director, [email protected]: 
(202) 512-4800: 
U.S. Government Accountability Office: 
441 G Street NW, Room 7149: 
Washington, D.C. 20548: 

*** End of document. ***