Highway Planning: Agencies Are Attempting to Expedite Environmental
Reviews, but Barriers Remain (Letter Report, 08/02/94, GAO/RCED-94-211).
Environmental and permit reviews for federal-aid highway projects are
complex and require coordination from as many as 30 federal, state, and
local highway, environmental, and planning agencies, as well as public
comment and review. GAO was asked to report on federal and state efforts
to streamline environmental reviews under the National Environmental
Policy Act and section 404 of the Clean Water Act of 1977, assess
whether these efforts will expedite the reviews, and determine the
amount of Highway Trust Fund money that is spent for mitigating adverse
effects on the environment. GAO found that highway and environmental
review agencies have developed processes to streamline the reviews for
highway projects that have an impact on wetlands. These processes
integrate reviews under the act and section 404, making them concurrent
rather than sequential; emphasize early interagency coordination; and
include procedures to resolve disputes. When the new processes are
fully implemented, agencies expect to expedite all project reviews,
which have typically taken over 5 years to complete. However, while the
new processes will save time, barriers still exist that could limit the
success of the new procedures. Environmental agencies may not have
sufficient staff to fully participate in review meetings, which could
limit consensus, and the new processes do not clarify how the
participating agencies should assess a project's cumulative impact on
the environment, a traditional source of delay. As for cost, the
Federal Highway Administration has not defined what constitutes an
environmental cost and does not routinely track how much states spend to
mitigate the highway projects' impact on the environment.
--------------------------- Indexing Terms -----------------------------
REPORTNUM: RCED-94-211
TITLE: Highway Planning: Agencies Are Attempting to Expedite
Environmental Reviews, but Barriers Remain
DATE: 08/02/94
SUBJECT: Interagency relations
Environmental legislation
Highway planning
Funds management
Road construction
Federal aid for highways
Environmental monitoring
Public roads or highways
Water resources conservation
Highway research
IDENTIFIER: Highway Trust Fund
**************************************************************************
* This file contains an ASCII representation of the text of a GAO *
* report. Delineations within the text indicating chapter titles, *
* headings, and bullets are preserved. Major divisions and subdivisions *
* of the text, such as Chapters, Sections, and Appendixes, are *
* identified by double and single lines. The numbers on the right end *
* of these lines indicate the position of each of the subsections in the *
* document outline. These numbers do NOT correspond with the page *
* numbers of the printed 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. *
* *
* A printed copy of this report may be obtained from the GAO Document *
* Distribution Facility by calling (202) 512-6000, by faxing your *
* request to (301) 258-4066, or by writing to P.O. Box 6015, *
* Gaithersburg, MD 20884-6015. We are unable to accept electronic orders *
* for printed documents at this time. *
**************************************************************************
Cover
================================================================ COVER
Report to the Chairman, Subcommittee on Transportation, Committee on
Appropriations, House of Representatives
August 1994
HIGHWAY PLANNING - AGENCIES ARE
ATTEMPTING TO EXPEDITE
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEWS, BUT
BARRIERS REMAIN
GAO/RCED-94-211
Environmental Planning for Highways
Abbreviations
=============================================================== ABBREV
AASHTO - American Association of State Highway and Transportation
Officials
CEQ - Council on Environmental Quality
EIS - environmental impact statement
EPA - Environmental Protection Agency
FHWA - Federal Highway Administration
FWS - Fish and Wildlife Service
GAO - General Accounting Office
MDNR - Michigan Department of Natural Resources
NEPA - National Environmental Policy Act
Letter
=============================================================== LETTER
B-257264
August 2, 1994
The Honorable Bob Carr
Chairman, Subcommittee on Transportation
Committee on Appropriations
House of Representatives
Dear Mr. Chairman:
Environmental and permit reviews for federal-aid highway projects are
complex processes requiring coordination from as many as 30 federal,
state, and local highway, environmental, and planning agencies, as
well as public input and review. On most projects, the agencies have
taken from 2 to 8 years to complete the environmental review and
permitting processes, a prerequisite for initiating highway
construction. In some cases, the agencies have been unable to
resolve environmental controversies because of differences in the
agencies' missions and policies.
Concerned with the increasing costs of highway projects resulting
from delays in environmental reviews and permits, you requested that
we study the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and permit
review processes for highway projects that require a permit under
section 404 of the Clean Water Act of 1977 (section 404). You
specifically requested that we (1) report on any federal and state
efforts to streamline environmental reviews, (2) assess whether these
efforts will expedite the reviews, and (3) determine the amount of
Highway Trust Fund money that is spent for mitigating adverse affects
on the environment. This report provides information on new
initiatives that federal and state agencies are using to expedite
environmental reviews and includes recommendations that could help
further expedite those reviews. In addition, the report includes
available information that the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA)
and state highway agencies (the states) have generated on the costs
of environmental mitigation.
RESULTS IN BRIEF
------------------------------------------------------------ Letter :1
Highway and environmental review agencies have developed processes to
streamline environmental and permitting reviews for highway projects
that have an impact on wetlands. These processes (1) integrate NEPA
and section 404 reviews, making them concurrent rather than
sequential; (2) emphasize early interagency coordination and
consensus-based decision-making; and (3) include procedures to
resolve interagency disputes. Currently, the agencies have completed
only one project review using one of the new processes. When the new
processes are fully implemented, the agencies expect to expedite all
project reviews, which typically have taken over 5 years to complete.
Although the agencies expect that the new processes will reduce the
time required for environmental review, barriers exist that could
limit the success of these processes. First, the integrated
processes do not include an evaluation component that would verify
whether the processes have expedited environmental reviews. Second,
the environmental review agencies may not have sufficient staff to
fully participate in coordination meetings, which could make it
difficult for the agencies to reach a timely consensus on a project's
impacts on the environment. Finally, the integrated processes do not
clarify how the participating agencies should assess a project's
cumulative impacts on the environment, thus failing to address a
traditional source of project delays.
FHWA has not defined what constitutes an environmental cost and, with
the exception of data on the costs of mitigating highway noise, does
not routinely track how much the states spend to mitigate the highway
projects' impacts on the environment. Although we found data on some
environmental costs, such as hazardous waste removal, none of the 11
states we contacted could provide complete information on their total
costs for mitigating adverse environmental impacts. Without such
data, we could not determine the total amount of Highway Trust Fund
money that the states have spent on mitigating environmental impacts.
BACKGROUND
------------------------------------------------------------ Letter :2
Before a federal-aid highway project can be constructed, FHWA and the
states are responsible for ensuring that the project complies with
the requirements of NEPA. NEPA requires the highway agencies to
identify and assess the environmental consequences of proposed and
alternative actions. If FHWA and the states undertake actions that
will have a significant impact on the environment, NEPA requires them
to prepare an environmental impact statement (EIS).\1 In preparing an
EIS, the state must balance the environmental impacts and the
benefits of the alternatives and select a preferred alternative.
Although NEPA requires the state to consider all environmental
impacts, the act does not require the state to choose the alternative
with the least impact.
The Clean Water Act of 1977 requires the states to consider the
impact that construction projects will have on wetlands or other
waters of the United States. Section 404 of the act requires the
agencies to obtain a permit from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
(the Corps), or from a state environmental agency that has assumed
section 404 responsibilities, before discharging dredged or fill
material into wetlands.\2 Section 404 requires that the states
consider alternatives and demonstrate that the preferred alternative
will cause the least environmental damage on the affected wetland
area. If a state cannot meet this requirement, the Corps will not
issue the permit, and the state will have to modify its preferred
alternative or reassess other alternatives. (App. I provides
further details on the NEPA and section 404 requirements.)
--------------------
\1 For federal-aid highway projects, the states typically prepare the
EIS and other environmental documents, and FHWA reviews them to
ensure that they meet federal requirements.
\2 As of March 1994, the Michigan Department of Natural Resources and
the New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection and Energy are
the only state environmental agencies that had assumed section 404
responsibilities.
AGENCIES HAVE IMPLEMENTED
PROCESSES TO STREAMLINE
ENVIRONMENTAL AND PERMITTING
REVIEWS
------------------------------------------------------------ Letter :3
On most highway projects, FHWA and the states have taken from 2 to 8
years to complete the NEPA and section 404 reviews. Recognizing the
need to streamline these reviews, FHWA, the Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA), and the Corps agreed in 1992 to develop processes to
integrate these reviews. Under the streamlined processes, the
highway and environmental review agencies assess the project's
impacts on wetlands at the beginning of the NEPA review and at a
level of detail traditionally done much later--at the time that a
state applies for a permit under section 404. In addition, the
streamlined processes require that before completing the NEPA review,
the agencies agree on the highway project's purpose and scope, the
alternatives selected for review, and the preferred alternative. The
highway and environmental review agencies expect that these new
processes will reduce the traditional sources of rework and delay
that often occurred during the permitting stage.
FHWA AND THE STATES CAN TAKE
SEVERAL YEARS TO COMPLETE
THE NEPA AND SECTION 404
REVIEWS
---------------------------------------------------------- Letter :3.1
Because FHWA does not collect data on the time required to complete
the NEPA and section 404 reviews, we collected this information by
conducting a comprehensive survey of seven FHWA divisions and 13
states.\3 On the basis of our survey, we found that for 76 highway
projects, FHWA and the states needed about 4.4 years on average to
complete the NEPA reviews. For the 32 projects requiring a section
404 permit, FHWA and the states took an average of 5.6 years to
complete both the NEPA and section 404 reviews. We also found a wide
variance in the length of the review period among projects. The time
required to complete the NEPA reviews ranged from less than 2 years
to over 12 years. In addition, the time required to complete both
the NEPA and section 404 reviews ranged from less than 2 years to
over 11 years. (Tables II.1 and II.2 in app. II illustrate this
wide range of environmental review time.)
Although FHWA had not collected data on the time required to complete
these reviews, officials stated that in their experience, it takes a
long time to complete the NEPA and section 404 reviews. According to
FHWA and Corps officials, FHWA, EPA, the Corps, and the Fish and
Wildlife Service (FWS) have been trying since 1988 to streamline the
NEPA and section 404 reviews. In 1988, these agencies, along with
the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, published a
document entitled Applying the Section 404 Permit Process to
Federal-Aid Highway Projects, which provided agencies with guidance
on improving interagency coordination and integrating the NEPA and
section 404 reviews. This document was also the basis of FHWA's,
EPA's, and the Corps' renewed efforts, initiated in May 1992, to
expedite the reviews.
--------------------
\3 For details on the survey methodology, see appendix V.
INTEGRATED PROCESSES ADDRESS
TRADITIONAL SOURCES OF DELAY
---------------------------------------------------------- Letter :3.2
Under the traditional processes, FHWA and the states, applying the
NEPA requirements, selected the preferred alternative to a highway
project before addressing section 404 requirements. During the NEPA
reviews, the states would develop information about all potential
environmental impacts that could result from several alternatives to
a highway project. The information on wetlands would often be
limited to determining the approximate number of acres of wetlands
that would be affected by the alternatives under review. Later, to
meet section 404 permit requirements, the states would develop more
detailed information, such as the type (marsh, swamp, or forest) and
function (wildlife habitat, flood control, or water purification) of
the wetlands affected by the preferred alternative. In some cases,
however, the Corps would deny permits, contending that the states had
not adequately considered the impacts on wetlands when selecting the
preferred alternatives during the NEPA reviews. As a result, the
states would have to reassess other alternatives.
This situation occurred in 1989 when the Corps denied the Connecticut
Department of Transportation's permit application to build a new
expressway. On this project, the state began the NEPA review in 1973
and completed it in 1985. It chose as its preferred alternative a
proposal to relocate a segment of an existing highway by constructing
a new 12-mile expressway. In the 1987 permit application, the state
proposed to fill 77 acres of wetlands to accommodate the new
expressway. The Corps denied the permit application because (1)
another practicable alternative--widening the existing highway--had
less impact on the wetlands, (2) the proposed project would cause
significant degradation to waters of the United States, and (3) the
state did not have an adequate plan for mitigating the impacts on the
wetlands. On the basis of the permit denial, the state decided to
start the NEPA review over and prepare a new EIS for the project.
Another traditional source of delay was that the highway agencies
could continue with NEPA and section 404 reviews without adequately
addressing the concerns of the environmental review agencies. As a
result, the concerns of EPA, FWS, and the Corps could remain
unresolved for years, creating adversarial relationships and delaying
projects.
This situation is illustrated by the state of Michigan's 5-year
effort to obtain environmental clearance for an 8-mile highway near
Detroit. On this project, the state continued the NEPA review for 4
years without resolving the environmental agencies' concerns. (See
fig. III.1 in app. III.) Eventually, the state, with FHWA's
approval, selected the alternative that FWS had cited throughout the
NEPA review as environmentally unacceptable. Accordingly, when the
state applied for a section 404 permit, the Michigan Department of
Natural Resources denied the application. The agencies spent about
another year developing an acceptable mitigation plan before the
state obtained the permit and began construction.
The integrated processes currently being implemented in the three
FHWA regions we reviewed seek to avoid the type of rework that
occurred in both Connecticut and Michigan.\4 The integrated processes
require the highway and environmental review agencies--typically the
states, FHWA, EPA, FWS, and the Corps--to hold periodic meetings
during which they identify and assess impacts on wetlands before
selecting a preferred alternative to a highway project.\5 As a
result, the agencies should detail impacts on wetlands at the
beginning of the draft EIS stage, rather than at the end of or after
the NEPA review, and mitigate the traditional rework and delays
caused by sequential reviews. As appendix IV illustrates, under the
integrated processes the agencies expect to obtain a section 404
permit at about the same time they complete the NEPA review.
The integrated processes also require the agencies to make decisions
by consensus during the concurrent processes and to employ mechanisms
to resolve disputes, when needed. Specifically, the agencies must
reach consensus at key project phases before they can proceed to a
subsequent phase. Known as "concurrence points," these steps are
intended to facilitate agreements among the agencies and preclude the
routine revisiting of decisions that were agreed to at the earlier
phases of a project. For example, FHWA Region V's integrated process
requires the participating agencies to agree on the project's purpose
and scope before selecting project alternatives to review. If the
agencies cannot reach agreement at a concurrence point,
dispute-resolution mechanisms are used. FHWA Region III's
dispute-resolution procedures allow the participating agencies 30
days to reach an agreement. If agreement cannot be reached among the
agencies' representatives, the dispute is elevated to regional
supervisors for a final resolution.
Although agency officials generally agreed that the integrated
processes will help expedite reviews, their experience to date has
been limited. Only one project, located in Pennsylvania, has
completed an integrated review. According to both FHWA and
Pennsylvania officials, by using Region III's integrated process, the
highway and environmental review agencies were able to successfully
identify and assess the impacts on wetlands early in the NEPA review,
obtain consensus among the agencies at key decision points, and
complete the reviews in 14 months. Officials are optimistic that
similar results can be achieved on future projects.
--------------------
\4 In May 1992, FHWA required all nine of its regions to develop
procedures to integrate the NEPA and section 404 requirements. In
addition, in 1992 the Corps' New England Division began revising its
own integrated process, known as the Highway Methodology, which
FHWA's Region I adopted.
\5 Under the integrated processes, the highway and environmental
review agencies coordinate extensively to review projects. The term
"agencies" refers to federal and state highway agencies and federal
environmental review agencies.
BARRIERS MAY LIMIT
EFFECTIVENESS OF THE INTEGRATED
PROCESSES
------------------------------------------------------------ Letter :4
Although the highway and environmental review agencies expect the
integrated processes to streamline environmental reviews, we
identified barriers that could limit the processes' success. First,
the agencies do not have a system to measure and evaluate the
processes' success or to assist them in making further improvements
to the processes. Second, because EPA and FWS may not have
sufficient resources, they may have difficulty meeting the increased
requirements for interagency coordination and study. Finally, the
processes do not include guidance that clarifies the requirements for
assessing the projects' cumulative environmental impacts. If
unaddressed, these barriers could limit both expected time savings
and the agencies' ability to further improve the processes.
AGENCIES LACK A SYSTEM TO
EVALUATE THE SUCCESS OF THE
INTEGRATED PROCESSES
---------------------------------------------------------- Letter :4.1
Although the agencies have developed the integrated processes to
expedite the NEPA and section 404 reviews, they have not developed a
system to evaluate their success. Specifically, the agencies have
not developed baseline data on the time needed to complete reviews
under the traditional processes, nor have they developed plans to
track projects' time frames under the integrated processes.
During our review, we found no central repository of information on
highway projects and their environmental reviews. No single federal
agency collects this information. The statistics discussed in this
report on the amount of time required to complete the NEPA and
section 404 requirements were generated with the assistance of three
federal agencies and 13 states. Without baseline data on how much
time the NEPA and section 404 reviews have taken, agency officials
will not be able to evaluate whether the integrated processes will
successfully reduce the time spent on environmental reviews.
Similar data limitations will be encountered with the new integrated
processes because the participating agencies have not established a
mechanism to track the time required for the environmental and
permitting reviews. The highway and environmental review agencies
have completed only one project under the integrated processes, which
was completed in 14 months. Although the agencies are using the
integrated processes to review 46 other projects, they have no plans
to track the time required for these reviews. FHWA officials said
they are more concerned with implementing the processes than with
documenting the time savings. However, unless they track other
projects using the processes, the agencies will have no means to
determine whether the 14-month review is typical. In addition,
unless the agencies have detailed information on other projects, they
will have difficulty in identifying both the continuing sources of
delay and measures to further improve the processes.
RESOURCE CONSTRAINTS COULD
LIMIT SUCCESS OF THE
INTEGRATED PROCESSES
---------------------------------------------------------- Letter :4.2
Under the integrated processes, the environmental review agencies
become full participants during the NEPA and section 404 reviews.
Their involvement includes attending numerous meetings, generally
held at individual state offices; conducting reviews; performing
studies; providing technical advice and expertise; and concurring on
key project decisions. As a result, the integrated processes require
these agencies to expend more resources than under the traditional
processes. However, officials from five of the six states we
contacted did not believe that EPA and FWS have adequate resources to
fulfill their increased responsibilities under the integrated
processes.
For example, since June 1991 up to 22 representatives from eight
agencies have attended monthly coordination meetings on a Connecticut
highway project. During the meetings, the participants mapped out
alternative highway alignments, identified environmental impacts, and
selected alternatives to study. However, because of EPA's staff
shortages, the agency could not send a NEPA compliance representative
to many of the coordination meetings. As a result, Connecticut
officials stated that the participating agencies have not been able
to obtain EPA's agreement on the project. State officials said that
EPA's resource constraints have contributed to the project being
about a year behind schedule.
Officials from EPA and FWS acknowledged that resource constraints
could limit the success of the integrated processes. Officials from
three EPA regions stated that they do not have adequate resources to
fully participate in the required coordination meetings or to review
and comment on all environmental documents in a timely manner. For
example, the NEPA coordinator in EPA's Region V stated that he has
only one full-time staff member available to review highway projects
for a six-state region. In addition, he said that his section does
not have the travel money needed to send EPA staff to all required
meetings. Officials at FWS headquarters also told us that the agency
does not have sufficient resources to fully participate in the
integrated processes.
Regional officials from EPA and the Corps have proposed that EPA,
FWS, and the Corps share the responsibility for attending meetings.
Under this approach, the agencies would alternate the responsibility
for attending meetings, at which the designated attendee would
present all three agencies' concerns about a project's impacts on the
environment. However, in commenting on a draft of this report, Corps
officials stated that they are still legally responsible for issuing
section 404 permits and are not certain if they can allow other
federal agencies to represent their interests.
UNCERTAINTY ABOUT CUMULATIVE
IMPACTS COULD CONTINUE TO
DELAY PROJECTS
---------------------------------------------------------- Letter :4.3
NEPA and section 404 require the agencies to examine the cumulative
environmental impacts of actions taken on projects. These cumulative
impacts occur beyond the immediate project area or at some time in
the future. Currently, federal agencies do not have a standard
methodology for assessing projects' cumulative impacts. The lack of
a standard methodology has traditionally delayed highway projects as
the states and environmental agencies worked at resolving various
issues, such as the geographical area that the environmental review
should cover and the type of mitigation needed to address future
environmental impacts. As a result, the states anticipate that
despite the integrated processes' emphasis on streamlining the
reviews, the lack of guidance clarifying the requirements for
assessing cumulative impacts will continue to delay projects.
The economic development that a highway project often induces--new
businesses and homes and other land development--indirectly produces
environmental impacts beyond the immediate highway corridor. For
example, the land development that occurs after a highway is built
could reduce the amount of wetlands in the area, thereby affecting
the wetlands system's ability to filter out pollutants and
potentially affecting the area's water quality. To determine the
cumulative impacts of actions such as land development, a state would
need to determine how the highway project, combined with the expected
development, would affect the area's environmental resources.
According to FHWA, cumulative impacts are important issues that
affect FHWA's and the states' decisions on projects' scope, location,
and mitigation measures. According to an April 1992 FHWA position
paper on cumulative impact assessments, the environmental review
agencies have been recommending cumulative impact assessments on
almost all new projects. In addition, the paper states that the
agencies are becoming particularly vocal about the potential for such
impacts on areawide water and wetlands resources.
For example, during the Haggerty Road Connector Project, FHWA, the
state, and the environmental review agencies tried for about 4 years
to resolve disputes about assessing the project's cumulative impacts
on wetlands. After 4 years without resolution of the issue, EPA and
FWS agreed to drop their permit concerns on the condition that the
state create a number of man-made wetlands and monitor their
viability.
Several state officials we contacted stated that the lack of a
standard methodology for assessing cumulative impacts has delayed and
will continue to delay projects, despite efforts to streamline the
NEPA and section 404 reviews. State officials recommended that FHWA,
EPA, and the Corps develop a methodology that specifies the level of
detail needed for assessing cumulative impacts, including a clear
definition of the geographical area that should be studied. In
addition, previous GAO studies have found that the agencies did not
have criteria for preparing cumulative impact assessments and
recommended that the agencies develop such criteria.\6
FHWA's current efforts to develop guidance center on supporting the
research led by the Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) to develop
general guidance that can be used by other federal agencies. CEQ
started this effort to develop the needed guidance because agencies
were having problems trying to assess cumulative impacts and because
a GAO report recommended that CEQ get involved in developing the
guidance. The project manager expects the guidance to be completed
during the summer of 1994.
The guidance will define the general criteria that the agencies
should consider, such as what geographical area to study, how to
define the baseline with which to compare expected future impacts,
and how many years into the future agencies should project impacts.
According to the project manager, the methodology could be applicable
to a wide variety of federal agencies' construction projects, such as
airports, dams, and highways. For highway projects, the project
manager stated that FHWA, using the CEQ's general methodology, could
develop a highway-specific methodology for preparing assessments of
cumulative environmental impacts.
--------------------
\6 Wetlands: The Corps of Engineers' Administration of the Section
404 Program (GAO/RCED-88-110, July 28, 1988) and Wetlands Protection:
The Scope of the Section 404 Program Remains Uncertain
(GAO/RCED-93-26, Apr. 6, 1993).
FEDERAL AND STATE AGENCIES DO
NOT MAINTAIN COMPREHENSIVE DATA
ON ENVIRONMENTAL COSTS
------------------------------------------------------------ Letter :5
FHWA and the American Association of State Highway and Transportation
Officials (AASHTO) do not collect or track data on all of the
environmental costs associated with highway projects. FHWA has
collected information on the costs related to noise barriers, and
AASHTO has collected data on the costs of mitigating impacts on
wetlands. However, inconsistencies in how the states report
information to these agencies lessen the data's overall reliability.
In addition, none of the 11 states we contacted routinely tracks data
on all environmental costs.
FHWA routinely tracks cost information only on the project-specific
costs that the states incur to build noise barriers along highway
corridors. According to FHWA, the states spent about $635 million
(in 1989 dollars) between 1972 and 1989 to construct noise barriers.
However, FHWA cautioned that the data (1) represent the states' best
estimates of those costs and (2) contain inconsistencies and
anomalies because the states defined and estimated the costs using
different criteria. In addition, the data are incomplete because
some states were unable to estimate the costs for certain categories
of noise barriers.
In 1988, AASHTO began collecting data on the costs of mitigating
highway projects' impacts on wetlands. Through an annual survey, the
organization asks member states to estimate how much they have spent
or expect to spend on creating, enhancing, restoring, and preserving
wetlands. From 1988 through 1992, 37 states reported that they had
spent or expect to spend approximately $79 million in federal and
state funds on mitigating impacts on wetlands. However, the states
did not report consistent or complete data. For example, some states
included the costs of purchasing land for mitigation, while others
did not.
Furthermore, the states we contacted could not easily reconstruct the
total environmental costs of completed projects because they did not
account for these costs separately from the overall costs of
projects. Some states were able to provide limited data on the costs
of mitigating impacts on wetlands, hazardous waste removals, and
noise barrier construction, but none had complete data on all
environmental costs. For example, the New Jersey Department of
Transportation reported to us in July 1993 that since 1985, it had
spent about $32 million in federal and state funds for mitigating
impacts on wetlands. These expenditures included the costs of
acquiring land for replacing wetlands.
According to officials from FHWA and the Illinois Department of
Transportation, the states could set up a system to account for the
costs of mitigating environmental impacts. The officials said that
the states would have to clearly define and categorize all
environmental costs; develop detailed project designs that identify
the unit costs associated with environmental cost categories; and set
up new accounting codes to track these items. According to FHWA
officials, the most difficult aspect would be defining what
constitutes an environmental cost. Furthermore, the states differ on
whether the benefits would justify the additional reporting costs.
CONCLUSIONS
------------------------------------------------------------ Letter :6
By incorporating section 404 analyses into NEPA reviews, the agencies
should reduce some of the uncertainty about permit issues. However,
it is premature to attest to the success of the new processes, since
they have been used to complete only one project. We have
established a baseline for the time traditionally taken to complete
environmental reviews. An evaluation component for the integrated
processes is now needed. By comparing review time frames under the
traditional and integrated processes, the agencies can determine how
successful they have been in expediting reviews. This information
could also help them identify any continuing sources of delay.
The integrated processes require EPA and FWS to become full partners
in making key decisions on projects. If these agencies are not able
to consistently attend the required meetings or participate in the
project reviews, the expected benefits could be negated. FHWA can
also address one known barrier to expediting environmental reviews by
developing guidance on assessing cumulative environmental impacts.
Unless FHWA develops a standard methodology that clarifies the
requirements for preparing cumulative impact assessments, uncertainty
on such issues will continue to delay projects.
Currently, neither FHWA nor the states routinely track expenditures
for environmental mitigation. Without such information, no one can
determine the portion of Highway Trust Fund money that is spent on
mitigating environmental impacts. However, it is not clear whether
the costs to establish a system to track environmental expenditures
would exceed the benefits.
RECOMMENDATIONS
------------------------------------------------------------ Letter :7
To help ensure the successful implementation of efforts to integrate
the NEPA and section 404 requirements, we recommend that the
Secretary of Transportation direct the Administrator, Federal Highway
Administration, to work with the states and the environmental review
agencies to
establish an evaluation component for the integrated processes that
(1) tracks the time taken for projects using integrated reviews,
(2) assesses improvements to the processes using GAO's baseline
data, (3) develops methods for addressing staffing limitations
and
develop highway-specific guidance on assessing projects' cumulative
impacts and incorporate it into highway project planning.
MATTER FOR CONGRESSIONAL
CONSIDERATION
------------------------------------------------------------ Letter :8
In order for the Congress to know the amount of Highway Trust Fund
money spent on environmental mitigation, it may wish to require the
Federal Highway Administration and the Environmental Protection
Agency to work together to define environmental costs and develop
accounting systems to track such costs. The Congress could consider
requiring the Federal Highway Administration and the states to
collect these data on a pilot basis to first determine the costs and
benefits of obtaining this information nationwide.
AGENCY COMMENTS
------------------------------------------------------------ Letter :9
As agreed with your office, we did not obtain written agency comments
on a draft of this report. However, we met with the Chief of FHWA's
Environmental Operations Division, officials from EPA's Office of
Federal Activities, the Chief of the Corps' Regulatory Branch, and
officials in FWS' Habitat Conservation Division to discuss the
report. In general, the officials agreed with our facts, findings,
conclusions, and recommendations. Where appropriate, we incorporated
their comments into the body of the report.
In addition, the Chief of FHWA's Environmental Operations Division
stated that the environmental review agencies must understand FHWA's
role as a transportation agency and that FHWA must understand the
importance of the environment. In his opinion, this understanding is
needed to ensure that all of the agencies are committed to fully
implementing the integrated processes. The Chief also said that the
recommendation to develop guidance on assessing cumulative impacts
should be addressed to the environmental review agencies. In his
opinion, these agencies need to first clarify how they want FHWA and
the states to meet cumulative impact assessment requirements before
FHWA can develop any guidance. In our opinion, FHWA should take the
lead in developing this guidance for highway projects because it is
the agency that (1) sponsors the projects and has the most to lose if
projects are delayed by uncertainty about cumulative impacts and (2)
is required to prepare the cumulative impact assessments.
---------------------------------------------------------- Letter :9.1
We conducted our review between April 1993 and May 1994, in
accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards.
Appendix V provides a detailed description of our scope and
methodology.
As agreed with your office, unless you publicly announce its contents
earlier, we plan no further distribution of this report until 7 days
from the date of this letter. At that time, we will send copies to
interested congressional committees; the Secretary of Transportation;
the Administrator, Federal Highway Administration; the Administrator,
Environmental Protection Agency; the Secretary of Defense; the
Secretary of the Army; the Secretary of the Interior; and the
Director, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. We will make copies
available to others upon request.
This work was performed under the direction of Kenneth M. Mead,
Director, Transportation Issues, who can be reached on (202)
512-2834. Other major contributors to this report are listed in
appendix VI.
Sincerely yours,
Keith O. Fultz
Assistant Comptroller General
ADDITIONAL INFORMATION ON THE
REQUIREMENTS OF NEPA AND SECTION
404
=========================================================== Appendix I
When the Federal Highway Administraion (FHWA) and the states
undertake actions that will have a significant impact on resources
such as wetlands, air quality, historic sites, or endangered species,
the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) requires them to prepare
an environmental impact statement (EIS). In preparing an EIS, the
state identifies (1) the need for a project, (2) alternatives that
meet the project's need, (3) the environmental impacts of the
alternatives, and (4) measures to minimize such impacts. Under NEPA,
FHWA also prepares environmental documents that address many federal,
state, and local environmental laws. FHWA uses the NEPA reviews to
bring all of the environmental and other considerations into a single
analysis, developing a document that not only identifies
environmental impacts, but also helps the agency make better
transportation decisions.
The NEPA reviews begin when FHWA publishes a Notice of Intent that
announces its intent to prepare an EIS and invites interested parties
to participate in the NEPA review. The state then prepares a draft
EIS, which identifies the environmental impacts of alternative
actions and provides reasons for eliminating some alternatives from
detailed study. After obtaining the agencies' and public comments on
the draft EIS, the state prepares a final EIS, which identifies a
preferred alternative and describes measures to mitigate the
environmental impacts of the selected action. After approving the
final EIS, FHWA prepares a Record of Decision, which presents the
basis for selecting the preferred action.
If a construction project will have an impact on wetlands or other
waters of the United States, the Clean Water Act of 1977 requires the
states to assess and mitigate these impacts. To meet section 404
requirements, the state studies the preferred alternative's impacts
on wetlands, develops measures to mitigate such impacts, and applies
for a section 404 permit.\1 If the Corps approves the application,
the state can proceed with the design and construction of the
project. Throughout the NEPA and section 404 reviews, FHWA, the
states, and agencies such as the Environmental Protection Agency
(EPA), the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS), and the U.S. Army
Corps of Engineers (the Corps) coordinate to ensure that the EIS
adequately assesses the environmental impacts and that the preferred
alternative meets section 404 permit requirements.
--------------------
\1 If projects do not significantly affect wetlands, applicants can
apply for general permits, which do not require a detailed review by
the Corps.
VARIANCES IN ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
TIME FRAMES
========================================================== Appendix II
Table II.1
Time Variability From Notice of Intent
to Record of Decision
Projects requiring Percent of
Years to review a NEPA review projects
-------------------- ------------------ ------------------
0-2 7 9.21
2-4 29 38.16
4-6 25 32.89
6-8 11 14.47
8-10 2 2.63
10-12 1 1.32
Over 12 1 1.32
============================================================
Total 76 1 00.00
------------------------------------------------------------
Table II.2
Time Variability From Notice of Intent
to Permit Issuance
Projects requiring
a NEPA and section Percent of
Years to review 404 review projects
-------------------- ------------------ ------------------
0-2 2 6.25
2-4 6 18.75
4-6 10 31.25
6-8 10 31.25
8-10 2 6.25
10-12 2 6.25
Over 12 0 0.00
============================================================
Total 32 100.00
------------------------------------------------------------
Source: GAO's survey of review time frames.
DETAILS OF THE HAGGERTY ROAD
PROJECT
========================================================= Appendix III
In 1987 the Michigan Department of Transportation proposed to
construct a highway that became known as the Haggerty Road Connector
Project. On this project, the state and FHWA, over the course of 4
years, defined the project's purpose and scope, selected and analyzed
several alternatives through draft and final EISs, and selected a
preferred alternative. During this same period, the Environmental
Protection Agency (EPA) and the Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS)
commented on the project's scope and alternatives, consistently
expressing concerns that the project would cause significant
environmental damage to wetlands in the proposed project's area.
However, the Michigan Department of Transportation continued with the
NEPA and section 404 reviews without resolving comments and concerns
from the environmental review agencies. (See fig. III.1.)
The federal environmental agencies stated that the alternatives
reviewed at the time would induce future development and destroy
additional wetlands in the surrounding area. Accordingly, EPA and
FWS requested that the state expand the 8-mile study area to 14 miles
and assess how future development in the expanded project's scope
would affect the wetlands. The environmental review agencies also
suggested that the state require the local municipalities to develop
wetland protection plans and, where necessary, restrict future
development along the highway corridor. EPA and FWS indicated that
they would recommend denial of the permit if the state did not
comply.
FHWA objected, stating that neither it nor the state had the legal
authority to require the local governments to establish zoning
restrictions for protecting the existing wetlands. After 4 years
without resolution of the issue, EPA and FWS agreed to drop their
permit concerns on the condition that the state create new wetlands
and monitor the success of a series of man-made wetlands.
Figure III.1: Traditional
Review Processes
(See figure in printed
edition.)
THE INTEGRATED REVIEW PROCESSES
========================================================== Appendix IV
(See figure in printed
edition.)
SCOPE AND METHODOLOGY
=========================================================== Appendix V
STREAMLINING PROCESSES
--------------------------------------------------------- Appendix V:1
To determine the current status of the agencies' efforts to
streamline the environmental review and permitting processes for
highway projects having an impact on wetlands, we contacted officials
at FHWA, EPA, the Corps, FWS, and the states that are responsible for
completing the NEPA and section 404 permitting reviews. We
interviewed the officials responsible for developing current
initiatives as well as staff responsible for the day-to-day
implementation of these processes. We also reviewed the agencies'
documentation describing these processes. We reviewed FHWA Region
III's and the Corps' integrated processes because they had been in
operation the longest. We reviewed FHWA Region V's process to obtain
additional geographical coverage.
COSTS OF MITIGATING
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
--------------------------------------------------------- Appendix V:2
To identify the amount of Highway Trust Fund money used for
mitigating environmental impacts, we contacted officials at FHWA and
11 states. We contacted specific states on the basis of (1)
information from FHWA and the American Association of State Highway
Officials and (2) their geographic location. We reviewed FHWA's
documentation on the costs of noise mitigation as well as the states'
limited information on the costs of mitigating other environmental
impacts.
DESCRIPTION OF GAO'S SURVEY
--------------------------------------------------------- Appendix V:3
PROJECT SELECTION
------------------------------------------------------- Appendix V:3.1
FHWA does not have comprehensive data on how long it takes to
complete reviews under NEPA and section 404 of the Clean Water Act.
To obtain these data, we collected information on the key dates of
the environmental review and permitting processes, which according to
FHWA would provide a sound basis for determining how long the reviews
typically take (see fig. V.1 for a copy of the survey sent to state
and FHWA offices). In developing the survey, we obtained input from
EPA, the Corps, and FHWA. We then sent the survey to 13 state
departments of transportation and 7 FHWA divisions to obtain
information on 91 projects.
To determine which projects to include in the survey, we obtained
from EPA a list of all highway projects that had a final
environmental impact statement between January 1, 1988, and October
1, 1993. We sent this list to the Corps and the Michigan Department
of Natural Resources (MDNR) (the only state that had assumed section
404 permit responsibilities) to identify those projects which also
had an individual section 404 permit. The Corps and MDNR identified
34 projects, located in 19 states and Puerto Rico, that had an
individual section 404 permit. From the EPA data base, we also
identified 57 other projects in these same locations that had a final
environmental impact statement but no requirement for an individual
section 404 permit.
We then sent out the survey, requesting information on the key dates
of the environmental review and permitting processes on the two types
of projects: (1) projects with a final environmental impact
statement between January 1, 1988, and October 1, 1993, and an
approved individual section 404 permit and (2) projects with a final
environmental impact statement between January 1, 1988, and October
1993, but no requirement for an individual section 404 permit.
SURVEY RESPONSES
------------------------------------------------------- Appendix V:3.2
From FHWA and the states we received data on 90 of the 91 projects, a
99-percent response rate. However, we had to drop 14 projects from
our analysis because either the projects had not completed the
environmental or permitting processes or we could not obtain complete
project information. For example, we dropped 11 projects because
they had not completed the environmental or permitting processes. As
a result, our analysis covers 76 projects, 32 with a final
environmental impact statement and approved individual section 404
permit and 44 with no requirement for an individual section 404
permit.
MEASURES TO SUPPLEMENT
SURVEY RESPONSES
------------------------------------------------------- Appendix V:3.3
On 22 of the projects, FHWA and the states were unable to provide the
date on which FHWA had issued a Notice of Intent for the projects.
However, we obtained the missing dates for 19 of the projects by
researching past issues of the Federal Register. In addition, on
seven projects, FHWA and the states were unable to provide
information on the date a permit was approved. For these projects,
we relied on information that the Corps provided.
Figure V.1: GAO's Survey on
the NEPA Review Process
(See figure in printed
edition.)
(See figure in printed
edition.)
(See figure in printed
edition.)
(See figure in printed
edition.)
(See figure in printed
edition.)
MAJOR CONTRIBUTORS TO THIS REPORT
========================================================== Appendix VI
CHICAGO REGIONAL OFFICE
Joseph A. Christoff, Assistant Director
David I. Lichtenfeld, Evaluator-in-Charge
Catherine A. Colwell, Evaluator
Frank Zbylski, Senior Operations Research Analyst
RESOURCES, COMMUNITY, AND ECONOMIC
DEVELOPMENT DIVISION, WASHINGTON
D.C.
Barry T. Hill, Associate Director
Kelly S. Ervin, Social Science Analyst