The road to streamlining: An indepth look at the NEPA process and ways to expedite it

Public Roads, July-August, 2003 by Kreig Larson

The National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA) marked the beginning of the environmental review process for all Federal actions, including the construction of highway and bridge projects falling under file U. S. Department of Transportation mad Federal Highway Administration (USDOT/ FHWA). According to the Congressional Research Service CRS Report for Congress: Environmental Streamlining Provisions in the Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century Status of Implementation, "Numerous stakeholders have expressed long-standing concerns about delays and increased costs for major highway construction projects, which are often attributed to the environmental review process required by the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA, P.L. 91-190). The substantial amount of time and funding often needed to prepare such documentation for highway projects has been an ongoing issue at the State and local level for many years." This perception is especially the case when the process involves an environmental impact statement (EIS), which is the most comprehensive and time-consuming environmental documentation required under NEPA.

"Good construction projects must move forward promptly, and those unsuited because they would be harmful to the environment, or do not enjoy community support, should quickly and decisively be taken off the drawing board," says FHWA Administrator Mary E. Peters. "To ensure environmental streamlining and stewardship, efficient environmental review processes are a priority."

To this end, Section 1309 of the Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century (TEA-21) in 1998 directed USDOT/FHWA to "develop and implement a coordinated environmental review process" for highway construction projects. One of the key elements of the coordinated process is the establishment of agreed time periods for the conduct of project analysis, review, opinion, decision, and approval. Section 1309 instructs that review processes be applied to projects requiring either the preparation of an EIS or an environmental assessment under NEPA.

More recently, in September 2002, President George W. Bush signed an Executive order requiring Federal agencies to promote environmental stewardship in the Nation's transportation system and expedite environmental reviews of high-priority transportation infrastructure projects. Similarly, both bodies of Congress have introduced bills designed to streamline the environmental process and expedite project delivery.

But amid the effort to streamline the NEPA process, one critical piece of the puzzle had been missing. The direct effects of NEPA on transportation projects--in terms of time and cost--had not been explored in depth. Without knowing the impacts of NEPA on overall project delivery, there is no yardstick to measure the success or failure of past and future streamlining efforts. Without understanding what has served historically to expedite or slow the NEPA process, effective means of streamlining cannot be identified.

To remedy this lack, FHWA's Office of Project Development and Environmental Review initiated a series of studies to determine how NEPA integrates into the overall process of project delivery and to assess the impacts of the NEPA process on the timing and cost of project delivery. The answers now are becoming clear.

Defining the NEPA Baseline

One of the studies, undertaken in 2000, provides a better understanding of the impacts of the NEPA process on the total time involved hi completing a Federal-aid highway or bridge project. Previously, the portion of time and cost attributed to NEPA requirements versus other potential sources of delay within the overall project delivery process--such as funding shortages, changes in design, contractor delays, lawsuits, and injunctions--had not been well understood. Ultimately, the study aimed to provide a baseline for comparing current and future environmental streamlining efforts within the NEPA process.

The baseline study focused on projects that have been constructed and are fully operating. In total, 100 constructed surface transportation projects with environmental impact statements completed in the 1970s, 1980s, and early 1990s were selected for analysis.

"Compared to previous studies of its kind, the baseline study offered a more comprehensive and less subjective approach to assessing the NEPA process," says Ken Hess, general manager at The Louis Berger Group, Inc., which conducted the study with FHWA. "The NEPA baseline study was designed to be reflective of real data that are as temporally and geographically diverse as possible."

Key Findings of the Baseline Study

A number of conclusions came to light. The study confirmed a positive relationship between the length of the NEPA process and the length of the total project development process:

* The completion of the NEPA process accounted for approximately 28 percent of the overall time for the project development process.

* The average time to complete an EIS for a transportation project was about 3.6 years.