Highway and Transit Projects: Better Data Needed to Assess Changes in the Duration of Environmental Reviews

Since 2005, the federal government has enacted various statutes aimed at accelerating the environmental review process for highway and transit projects. In addition, the Clean Water Act and the Endangered Species Act may require three federal agencies—the Corps, FWS, and NMFS—to issue permits or perform consultations before a project can proceed.

GAO is required by statute to assess the extent to which statutory provisions have accelerated and improved environmental permitting and consulting processes for highway and transit projects. This report examines, among other things: 1) the impact of streamlining provisions on consulting and permitting time frames, and (2) additional actions used by federal resource agencies to streamline their reviews. GAO analyzed permitting and consulting data from the 3 federal agencies and interviewed officials from the 3 agencies, 16 agency field offices, and 7 state DOTs for their perspectives on the effect of streamlining provisions and other efforts. GAO selected these offices to include a range of locations and those with a greater number of permits and consultations, among other factors.

Federally funded highway and transit projects must be analyzed for their potential environmental effects, as required by the National Environmental Policy Act, and may be subject to other environmental protection laws, including the Clean Water Act and the Endangered Species Act. These laws may require the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Corps) to issue permit decisions and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) and the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) to conduct consultations before a project can proceed. These three agencies are referred to as “resource agencies” for this report. The three most recent transportation reauthorization acts include provisions that are intended to streamline various aspects of the environmental review process; 18 of these provisions could potentially affect time frames for the environmental permitting and consulting processes for highway and transit projects.

While officials GAO interviewed at resource agencies and state departments of transportation (state DOT) noted that some actions called for by the 18 statutory provisions have helped streamline the consultation and permitting processes for highway and transit projects, GAO found that a lack of reliable agency data regarding permitting and consulting time frames hinders a quantitative analysis of the provisions' impact. Officials said, for example, that a provision that allows federal liaison positions at resource agencies to focus solely on processing applications for state DOT projects has helped avoid delays in permit and consultation reviews. However, none of the three resource agencies could provide enough reliable data to analyze changes in the durations of consultations and permit reviews over time for any of the provisions. Further, GAO identified limitations, such as negative or missing values, and inconsistent data entry practices for FWS and NMFS data. FWS and NMFS have limited controls, such as electronic safeguards and other data-entry procedures, to ensure the accuracy and reliability of their data on the duration of consultations. Left unaddressed, these data quality issues may impair the agencies' ability to accurately determine whether they are meeting their 135-day statutory and regulatory deadlines to complete consultations and provide biological opinions, and could affect their ability to provide accurate data on time frames for efforts of the Office of Management and Budget to track agencies' performance in conducting environmental reviews. While FWS and NMFS officials stated that the agencies plan to improve their tracking systems, the agencies do not have documented plans or time frames for the improvements and it is unclear whether the efforts will include internal controls to improve data reliability.

Some federal resource agency and state DOT officials GAO interviewed identified additional actions that have been used to streamline the consultation and permitting processes to avoid delays in agency reviews. For example, 16 of the 23 resource agency and state DOT officials said that field office staff provided training to state DOT staff about the information field offices required for permit or consultation applications. Resource agency and state DOT officials also identified electronic systems with environmental data and for submitting documents as streamlining actions that have been helpful.

GAO is making two recommendations, one to FWS and one to NMFS, to develop plans and time frames for improving their tracking systems and to develop internal controls to improve data reliability.

The Departments of Commerce and Interior concurred with our recommendations.

Highway and transit projects that use federal funds are subject to federal  requirements, including requirements under the National Environmental  Policy Act (NEPA), to analyze the potential environmental effects of  proposed projects; such evaluations are called environmental impact  statements or environmental assessments, which we refer to in this report  as “environmental reviews”. In addition, other environmental protection  laws sometimes require “federal resource agencies”—such as the U.S.  Army Corps of Engineers (Corps), the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service  (FWS), and the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS)—to issue  permit decisions or perform consultations before a project can proceed.  Generally, as part of the environmental review, federal agencies are  required, to the fullest extent possible, to integrate the NEPA  requirements with other planning and environmental review procedures  so that all run concurrently. For transportation projects, including  highway and transit projects, additional streamlining provisions have been  enacted for environmental reviews. Nonetheless, some view the NEPA  environmental review process as time-consuming, while others have  praised it for, among other things, helping protect the environment and  bringing public participation into the government’s decision making.

The past three surface transportation reauthorization acts—the Safe,  Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy for  Users (SAFETEA-LU) in 2005, the Moving Ahead for Progress in the 21st  Century Act (MAP-21) in 2012, and the Fixing America’s Surface  Transportation Act (FAST Act) in 2015—contain a number of provisions  aimed at accelerating the environmental review process for highway and  transit projects. In addition, the Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ),  an executive office of the White House established in NEPA, is  responsible for overseeing NEPA implementation and issues regulations  and guidance that, among other things, are intended to make  environmental reviews more efficient.

The FAST Act included provisions for us to assess, among other things,  the extent to which the streamlining provisions in the three most recent  transportation reauthorization acts have improved and accelerated the  environmental permitting and consulting processes for highway and  transit projects. This report: addresses the extent to which identified streamlining provisions have  had an impact on the time frames for the environmental consulting  and permitting processes;  identifies actions taken by federal resource agencies to streamline  their consulting and permitting reviews and identifies additional  streamlining opportunities, if any; and describes the actions taken by CEQ to accelerate highway and transit  projects.

To evaluate the extent to which the streamlining provisions had an impact  on the consulting and permitting processes for highway and transit  projects, we reviewed the last three surface transportation  reauthorizations to identify the relevant provisions. We identified 18  provisions that are intended to streamline various aspects of the NEPA  environmental review process and could potentially affect the permitting  and consultation processes of the three federal resource agencies. In  addition, to obtain perspectives on the use and impact of the streamlining  provisions, we conducted interviews with resource agency officials in  Washington, D.C. and selected field and district offices, as well as state  departments of transportation (state DOT) and transit agency officials, as  described below. The officials we interviewed from three local transit  agencies did not offer any perspectives on the use of streamlining actions  or provisions related to environmental consulting and permitting and are  therefore not included in this report. To determine the time frames for  completing consultations and permit reviews, we analyzed the most  recently available data on the time frames of consulting and permitting  processes from the resource agencies for fiscal years 2009 through 2016.  We checked for missing data, errors, and other discrepancies in the  agencies’ data to determine its reliability and to identify any potential  limitations. While these were the best available consultation and  permitting data maintained by these agencies, we found inconsistencies,  errors, and limitations in some data; we address these flaws later in this  report. We reviewed agency policies and procedures on ensuring  accurate and reliable data and compared them with federal standards for  internal controls.

To examine the actions used by resource agencies to streamline  environmental consulting and permitting, we interviewed officials in seven  FWS field offices, seven Corps district offices, and two NMFS regional  offices. We reviewed field office documents and policies used to  accelerate environmental consulting and permitting reviews. We selected  these offices based on several factors identified through analysis of  federal resource agencies’ data between fiscal years 2009 and 2016 to  include locations with a relatively large number of consultations or permit  decisions performed by each office, a mix of the average length of time  for consultations or permit decisions by each office, a mix of different  types of consultations or permit decisions performed by each office, and a  mix of geographic regions. We also interviewed officials from seven state  DOTs to discuss streamlining actions and additional opportunities to  streamline the consulting and permitting processes. We selected the  state DOTs based on our analysis of federal resource agency data  between fiscal years 2009 and 2016 to include locations with a large  number of consultations and permit decisions requested by state, a mix of  average consultation or permit decision times by state, a mix of different  types of consultations or permit decisions the states received, and a mix  of geographic regions. We obtained the perspectives of these field,  district, regional, and state DOT officials on additional efforts, beyond the  statutory streamlining provisions, to accelerate the resource agencies’  environmental consulting and permitting reviews. These responses from  the interviews are not generalizable.

To describe actions taken by CEQ, we reviewed guidance and  regulations issued by the Council and interviewed CEQ officials about the  Council’s actions to help streamline the environmental review process for  federal transportation projects. We also interviewed the Department of  Transportation (DOT) and federal resource agency officials to discuss the  extent to which CEQ actions resulted in streamlining environmental  reviews.

We conducted this performance audit from March 2017 to July 2018 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.

Enacted in 1970, NEPA, along with subsequent CEQ implementing  regulations, sets out an environmental review process that has two  principal purposes: (1) to ensure that an agency carefully considers  information concerning the potential environmental effects of proposed  projects; and (2) to ensure that this information is made available to the  public. DOT’s Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) and Federal  Transit Administration are generally the federal agencies responsible for  NEPA compliance for federally funded highway and transit projects.  Project sponsors—typically state DOTs and local transit agencies—may  receive DOT funds, oversee the construction of highway and transit  projects, develop the environmental review documents that are approved  by federal agencies, and collaborate with federal and state  stakeholders.

In addition, the Clean Water Act and the Endangered Species Act are two  key substantive federal environmental protection laws that may be  triggered by a proposed transportation project and that may require the  federal resource agencies to issue permit decisions or perform  consultations before a project can proceed.

Permits under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act

Section 404 of the Clean Water Act generally prohibits the discharge of  dredged or fill material, such as clay, soil or construction debris, into the  waters of the United States, except as authorized through permits issued  by the Corps. Before the Corps can issue a section 404 permit, it must  determine that the discharge of material is in compliance with guidelines  established by the Environmental Protection Agency.

The Corps issues two types of permits:  Individual permits: issued as a standard permit for individual projects,  following a case-by-case evaluation of a specific project involving the  proposed discharge of dredged or fill material and/or work or  structures in navigable water.

General permits: issued for categories of projects the Corps has  identified as being similar in nature and causing minimal individual  and cumulative adverse environmental impacts. General permits may  be issued on a state, regional, or nationwide basis.

In fiscal year 2016, the Corps completed approximately 250 individual  permits and 10,750 general permits for transportation projects, based on  agency data. The Corps is not required to complete its permit reviews  within a specified time frame; however, it has performance metrics,  including target time frames for issuing permit decisions based on permit  type.

Consultations under Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act

The purpose of the Endangered Species Act is to conserve threatened  and endangered species and the ecosystems upon which they depend.  Section 7 of the Act directs federal agencies to consult with FWS or  NMFS when an action they authorize, fund, or carry out, such as a  highway or transit project, could affect listed species or their critical  habitat. Section 7 also applies if non-federal entities receive federal  funding to carry out actions that may affect listed species.

Before authorizing, funding, or carrying out an action, such as a highway  or transit project, lead federal agencies must determine whether the  action may affect a listed species or its critical habitat. If a lead federal  agency determines a proposed action may affect a listed species or its  critical habitat, formal consultation is required unless the agency finds,  with FWS’ or NMFS’ written concurrence, that the proposed action is not  likely to adversely affect the species. Formal consultation is initiated when  FWS or NMFS receives a complete application from the lead agency,  which may include a biological assessment and other relevant  documentation, which describe the proposed action and its likely effects.  The formal consultation usually ends with the issuing of a biological  opinion by FWS or NMFS, which generally must be completed within time  frames specified in the Endangered Species Act and in its implementing  regulations. Specifically, FWS and NMFS have 135 days to complete a  formal consultation and provide a biological opinion to the lead federal  agency and project sponsor in order for the project to proceed. The consultation period can be extended by mutual agreement of the lead  federal agency and FWS or NMFS. In fiscal year 2016, FWS completed  179 formal consultations and NMFS completed 29 formal consultations  for federally-funded highway and transit projects, based on agency data.

The three most recent transportation reauthorization acts include  provisions that are intended to streamline various aspects of the  environmental review process for highway and transit projects. We  identified 18 statutory provisions from these acts that could potentially  affect time frames for the environmental permitting and consulting  processes for highway and transit projects. Based on our review, we  grouped the provisions into two general categories: Administrative and  Coordination Changes and NEPA Assignment. See appendix II for a  complete list and descriptions of the 18 provisions that we identified.

The 16 Administrative and Coordination Changes provisions are process  oriented. These provisions, for example: (1) establish time frames for the  environmental review process, (2) encourage the use of planning  documents and programmatic agreements, and (3) seek to avoid  duplication in the preparation of environmental review documents. The  two NEPA Assignment provisions authorize DOT to assign its NEPA  responsibility to states.

Agency Experience Suggests Streamlining Provisions Had Some Positive Effect, but Lack of Reliable Data Hinders Impact Assessment

Resource agency and state DOT officials told us they believe that some  actions called for by the 18 provisions we identified, such as  programmatic agreements, have helped streamline the consulting and  permitting processes. However, a lack of reliable agency data regarding  permitting and consulting time frames hinders a quantitative analysis of  the provisions’ impact. Further, limitations in FWS and NMFS data, such  as missing or incorrect data and inconsistent data entry, could impair the  agencies’ ability to determine whether the agencies are meeting statutory  and regulatory requirements, such as the extent to which the agencies  complete formal consultations and provide biological opinions within 135  days. FWS and NMFS have limited controls that would help ensure the  completeness and accuracy of their data.

Officials at Resource Agencies and State DOTs Identified Some Actions That Are Called for by Streamlining Provisions That May Accelerate Environmental Reviews

Resource agency and state DOT officials we interviewed told us they  believe that some actions called for by the provisions we identified have  helped streamline the consulting and permitting processes. While these  officials generally did not quantify or estimate the number of days review  times may have been reduced, they did generally explain how the review  processes were accelerated, depending upon the action being taken, for  example:

Programmatic agreements: Officials from 18 of the 23 state DOTs and  federal resource agency field offices we spoke with told us that using  programmatic agreements has generally helped reduce review times.  Programmatic agreements can standardize the consulting and  permitting processes for projects that are relatively routine in nature  (e.g., repaving an existing highway). For example, one state DOT and  an FWS field office have an agreement that establishes a consistent  consultation process to address projects, such as pavement marking,  that have either a minimal or no effect on certain federally protected  species and their critical habitat. Programmatic agreements may  contain review time targets that are shorter than those for reviews not  subject to the agreements. For example, officials from one FWS field  office said that they typically met the 60-day time limit that was  established in one such agreement, compared to the standard 135- day period for completing formal consultations and issuing biological  opinions. In part, DOT has assisted in establishing programmatic  agreements affecting consultation and permit review processes. For  example, according to DOT, its Every Day Counts initiative has  helped create scores of programmatic agreements through efforts  such as identifying best practices, performing outreach, developing  new approaches, and improving existing ones. In our 2018 report on  highway and transit project delivery, 39 of 52 state DOTs in our  survey reported that programmatic agreements had sped up project  delivery within their states.

Federal liaison positions: Officials from 21 of the 23 selected state  DOT and federal resource agency field offices told us that liaison  positions at resource agency offices, which are positions held by  federal employees who work on consultation and permit reviews for  state DOTs, have streamlined the consultation and permit review  processes. According to almost all of the selected officials, these  positions provide benefits, such as dedicating staff to process the  state DOTs’ applications for permits and consultations, allowing state  DOTs to prioritize projects, and enabling enhanced coordination  between agencies to avoid conflicts and delays in the review process.

For example, officials from one state DOT said that having a  dedicated liaison at an FWS field office gave the state DOT a  responsive point of contact, helped address workload concerns at the  FWS field office, and enabled FWS office staff to attend interagency  coordination meetings. According to DOT, as of November 2017,  states had 43 full-time equivalent positions at FWS and 11 at NMFS.  Corps officials stated that states had more than 40 full-time equivalent  positions at the Corps in fiscal year 2017. In our 2018 report on  highway and transit project delivery, 32 of 52 state DOTs in our  survey reported that they had used this provision. We found that 23  of those state DOTs reported that it had sped up project delivery  within their states.

Early coordination: Officials from 18 of the 23 state DOT and federal  resource agency field offices we spoke with told us that early  coordination in consultation and permit review processes has  generally reduced review times. According to most selected state  DOT and resource agency officials, this early coordination can provide  benefits, such as improving the quality of applications, avoiding later  delays by identifying concerns early in the process, and allowing  permitting to be considered in the design phase of projects. For  example, officials at one of the Corps’ district offices told us that they  routinely hold pre-application meetings with state, DOT, and resource  agency contacts to define what the Corps needs to process the  application quickly and to avoid later problems. Similarly, in our 2018  report on highway and transit project delivery, 43 of 52 state DOTs in  our survey reported that they had used this provision, and 27 of those  reported that the provision had sped up project delivery within their  states.

Although selected federal resource agency and state DOT officials were  able to identify actions called for by the provisions that they believe have  helped streamline the consulting and permitting processes, officials from  all three resource agencies said that their agencies had not analyzed the  impact of the streamlining provisions on permit review or consultation  time frames and did not have plans to do so in future.

Lack of Resource Agencies’ Data Hinders Analysis of Whether Streamlining Provisions Reduced Time to Conduct Reviews

For two reasons, we were unable to quantify the impact the 18  streamlining provisions had on the three federal resource agencies’  consultation and permit review time frames. First, factors other than the  streamlining provisions may have also affected review times, limiting our  ability to discern the extent to which the provisions had an impact.  Second, the resource agencies could not provide enough reliable data for  us to analyze changes in consultation and permit review durations over  time.

With respect to the first reason, factors other than the streamlining  provisions can influence the durations of permit reviews and  consultations, a situation that would make it difficult to establish whether  the streamlining provisions in the reauthorization acts had a direct impact.  In particular, officials from resource agencies and state DOTs we  interviewed informed us that some offices took actions included in some  of the various streamlining provisions before the three transportation  reauthorizations were enacted. For example, officials at one FWS field  office said that the office completed a programmatic agreement in 2004.  Officials at one state DOT said that they had funded positions at resource  agency offices for two decades. Corps officials said that the Corps  implemented early coordination before the provision requiring this action  was enacted. DOT officials also said that the provisions generally codified  and expanded on existing actions. Further, factors such as staffing  shortages at state DOTs and resource agency offices may also affect the  length of consultations and permit reviews. Therefore, even if the  durations of permit reviews and consultations could be evaluated over  time with enough reliable data, it could be difficult to connect changes in  the durations to the streamlining provisions with any confidence.

Second, none of the three resource agencies could provide enough  reliable data to evaluate trends in the duration of consultations and permit  reviews after the 15 provisions were introduced in SAFETEA-LU and  MAP-21, and the FAST Act was enacted too recently to evaluate any  trends following the 3 provisions it introduced. To evaluate trends in  permit review and consultation durations before and after the provisions  were enacted, we would need sufficient data before and after their  enactment. The SAFETEA-LU, MAP-21, and FAST Act provisions were  enacted in August 2005, July 2012, and December 2015, respectively.

Available Corps’ data could not be used to determine trends in permit  review durations before and after the SAFETEA-LU and MAP-21  provisions were enacted. Specifically, Corps officials told us that their  data prior to October 2010 should not be used to evaluate trends due  to changes in the Corps’ data tracking system and data entry  practices. The Corps did not provide more than one full fiscal year of  data prior to 2012, and we would need more than one year of data to  establish an adequate baseline in order to control for variations that  may occur from year to year.

Further, FWS and NMFS could not provide reliable data to evaluate  trends in the durations of consultations before or after enactment of  SAFETEA-LU and MAP-21. FWS and NMFS officials informed us of  limitations in their agencies’ consultation data that rendered the data  incomplete prior to fiscal year 2009 and calendar year 2012  respectively, a circumstance that would prevent us from evaluating  trends following SAFETEA-LU. Specifically, FWS officials told us that  use of its data tracking system was not mandatory in all regions for  consultation activities prior to fiscal year 2009. NMFS officials told us  that data from its tracking system are incomplete prior to 2012,  because some prior records did not transfer properly during a  migration to a newer version of the database. Further, the  weaknesses in more recent FWS and NMFS data that we identify  below would also limit an analysis of changes in consultation  durations following MAP-21.

Finally, since the three agencies provided data through fiscal year  2016, we had less than one fiscal year of data following the December  2015 enactment of the FAST Act, an amount that was insufficient to  evaluate trends in consultation and permit review durations following  the Act’s enactment.

Weaknesses in FWS and NMFS Data Would Limit Analysis of Consultation Time Frames

We identified limitations, such as incorrect or missing data and  inconsistent data entry practices, in more recent FWS and NMFS data,  and such limitations would limit future analysis of trends in the duration of  consultations. We did not identify similar limitations in Corps data. These  limitations could also hinder analyses of the extent to which the agencies  meet statutory and regulatory requirements, such as the extent to which  the agencies completed formal consultations and issued biological  opinions within 135 days. Standards for internal control in the federal  government state that agency management should use quality  information to achieve the agency’s objectives and should design  appropriate controls for information systems that ensure that all  transactions are completely and accurately recorded. Information systems  should include controls to achieve validity, completeness, and accuracy of  data during processing, including input, processing, and output controls.  However, we identified errors in consultation data provided by FWS and  NMFS officials. For example, FWS’s data included 1,568 unique  transportation-related formal consultations that started and concluded  within fiscal years 2009 through 2016. Of those records, 27 had formal  consultation initiation dates that followed the conclusion date, resulting in  a negative duration; 113 lacked an initiation date, precluding a  determination of the duration; and 19 had formal consultation initiation  dates that preceded the dates on which FWS could begin work. NMFS  officials said that records cannot be removed from the database once  saved—including duplicate, incomplete, withdrawn, or otherwise bad  records—and that the database does not always retain corrections after  they are made. As a result, data exported from the database are manually  reviewed for errors, according to NMFS officials. However, data provided  to us after this manual review process still contained errors.

Further, FWS and NMFS officials described limited controls to ensure the  completeness and accuracy of their data. FWS officials said that they do  not currently conduct systematic reviews to examine the accuracy of the  data. The officials also said that they do not have procedures for follow-up  when errors are found, although regional or headquarters staff may  conduct outreach to an affected office if errors are found. FWS officials  also acknowledged that the database lacks sufficient electronic  safeguards on all fields to prevent errors. Similarly, NMFS officials said  that NMFS has not tracked the accuracy of its data and that many fields  in NMFS’s database do not have safeguards to limit data entry errors.

FWS and NMFS also lack procedures to ensure that they consistently  track all data associated with consultation time frames. For example,  FWS and NMFS officials could not provide data on whether formal  consultations and the issuance of biological opinions that exceeded 135  days obtained extensions, data that officials would need to track the  extent to which their agencies comply with the requirement to complete  consultations and issue biological opinions within 135 days absent an  extension. The officials said that the agencies do not require their staff to  enter extension data, and that some staff enter extension dates but others  do not. In addition, although hundreds of projects may be reviewed under  a single programmatic agreement, FWS and NMFS do not record all  projects reviewed under programmatic agreements. For example, NMFS  officials told us that the agency’s system is not designed for staff to enter  individual actions reviewed under programmatic agreements. This  process prevents comparisons of review time frames for individual  projects under programmatic agreements with projects not reviewed  under those agreements. FWS’s database also does not require some  critical information for determining consultation time frames, such as the  initiation dates for formal consultations. Further, FWS headquarters  officials acknowledged that differing field office procedures had  contributed to varying record-keeping methods, and officials at five of the  seven FWS field offices we interviewed told us that FWS’s database is  not used consistently among field offices.

The quality of FWS’s and NMFS’s consultation data may limit the ability of  the agencies to determine whether they are completing consultations  within required time frames, as described above, and may also impact  other internal and external uses of the data. For example, the quality of  the data may limit the agencies’ evaluation and management of their  consultation processes. FWS officials said that FWS uses its data internally in calculating annual performance measures and to answer  questions from senior leadership, among other purposes. NMFS officials  said that NMFS uses its data internally to examine the agency’s Section 7  workload, help set agency funding priorities, and track projects through  the consultation process. FWS and NMFS will also have to ensure that  their data systems can provide reliable data to comply with an executive  order requiring federal agencies to track major infrastructure projects,  including the time required to complete the processing of environmental  reviews. The August 2017 executive order directed the Office of  Management and Budget, in coordination with the Federal Permitting  Improvement Steering Council, to issue guidance for establishing a  system to track agencies’ performance in conducting environmental  reviews for certain major infrastructure projects. To meet this directive,  this system is to include assessments of the time and costs for each  agency to complete environmental reviews and authorizations for those  projects, among other things. According to a multi-agency plan, system  implementation is planned to begin in the fourth quarter of fiscal year  2018, and publishing of performance indicator data is planned to begin in  the first quarter of fiscal year 2019. In addition, FWS has provided  consultation data to outside researchers who have publicly reported them  in a study and a web portal. NMFS makes some data for completed  consultations publicly available through the internet.

NMFS and FWS officials we interviewed said that the agencies are  developing new versions of their databases, and FWS officials said that  they will develop new standard-operating procedures and guidance for  data entry. Specifically, FWS officials said that they have discussed the  development of a new version of their database that would better track  consultations chronologically and ensure greater data accuracy and  consistency, but that effort is still in the planning stage. Those officials  also said that they have formed a team to explore the development of  new standard-operating procedures, training, and guidance for consistent  data entry and that they are considering how to include data on whether  consultations received extensions in the new system. NMFS officials  said that the agency is modernizing its database, including improving data  entry, error prevention, maintenance, and tracking of actions under  programmatic agreements. However, FWS and NMFS officials could not  provide specific time frames for implementation or documentation of  these efforts. Therefore, it is not clear whether these efforts will include  internal controls that address all of the types of issues we identified.

Federal and State Officials Identified Additional Actions That Helped Resource Agencies Streamline Processes

Some Officials at Resource Agencies and State DOTs Took Actions to Improve Applications

Officials at 19 of the 23 federal resource agency field offices and state  DOTs we spoke with generally mentioned two additional actions, beyond  the 18 provisions we identified, for streamlining the consultation and  permitting process:  field office assistance to lead federal agencies and project sponsors,  including state DOTs, to improve applications for permits and  consultations; and electronic systems for environmental screening and document  submission.

First, officials from some of the 16 federal resource agency field offices  we spoke with stated that they provide assistance to lead federal  agencies and project sponsors to clarify the information required in permit  and consultation applications before they are submitted to the resource  agency. Officials from 8 of those 16 offices stated that they provided that  assistance in order to improve the quality and completeness of  information included in the applications. Resource agency officials stated  that the permit or consultation process is delayed when the lead federal  agency or project sponsor does not initially provide the quantity or quality  of information necessary for resource agencies’ field office staff to  complete permits and consultations. These staff must then request  additional information from the lead federal agency or project sponsor,  extending the permit or consultation reviews. Therefore, officials at 16  of the 23 federal resource agency field offices and state DOTs we spoke  with said that field office staff provided training to state DOT staff to  specify the information field offices required for initial permit or  consultation applications. In addition, officials at 6 of the 23 resource  agency field offices and state DOTs we spoke with created or were in the  process of creating documents, such as application templates or  checklists, that specify information required initially by field offices for  applications. For example, according to officials at one FWS field office, a  staff member created a standardized form letter for consultation  applications that includes information for the state DOT to submit with its  applications.

Second, officials at federal resource agency field offices and state DOTs  also identified electronic systems for environmental screening and  document submission as helpful streamlining actions. Some state  agencies created electronic systems for permitting and consultation  applications, according to officials at 6 of the 23 resource agency field  offices and state DOTs we spoke with. Some of those state agencies  created systems for submitting application documentation, which can  include multiple reports and studies related to an endangered species or  its critical habitat. In addition, some of those state agencies created  electronic tools that screen potential transportation project areas for  environmental impacts. For example, in Pennsylvania, state agencies  created two electronic systems. The first system allows application  materials to be shared with multiple state and federal agencies while the  second allows applicants to screen project areas for potential impacts on  endangered species. The Pennsylvania Natural Heritage Program, a  partnership between four state agencies, created a system that allows  lead federal agencies or project sponsors to determine what potential  environmental impacts, if any, exist in a proposed project’s geographic area (fig. 1). According to field office officials who use this resource, it  saves time and improves agency coordination on transportation projects.  Officials at two additional offices stated that their state agencies were in  the process of establishing such electronic systems. In addition, FWS has  piloted additional capabilities for its existing electronic system that  screens for species information. According to FWS officials, the current  pilot is restricted to specific species included in existing programmatic  agreements, but this updated system would guide applicants through the  consultation application and allow electronic document submission.

The federal resource agencies continue to seek out additional  opportunities for their field offices to streamline the permitting and  consultation processes, according to officials at 11 of the 16 field offices.  Officials at four of those offices stated that they discuss additional  streamlining opportunities at regular transportation-related meetings with  other federal and state agency offices. However, beyond the streamlining  actions and provisions cited above, officials at resource agency field  offices and state DOTs did not identify additional opportunities used by  multiple field offices to streamline permits and consultations.

DOT Supports Actions to Streamline the NEPA Process

DOT has a role in streamlining the overall NEPA process for  transportation projects. Officials from DOT and its modal  administrations, in coordination with federal resource agencies,  participate in or support several efforts, including the following, to  streamline the NEPA process:

Coordination meetings: DOT officials participate in some early or  regular coordination efforts, according to officials at some federal  resource agency field offices and state DOTs we spoke with. For  instance, according to officials at one Corps district office, DOT  officials participate in some monthly meetings between federal and  state agencies to discuss both specific transportation projects and  recurring issues that may present streamlining opportunities.

Transportation liaisons: As mentioned above, recipients of DOT funds  may partially fund the transportation liaison positions at federal  resource agency field offices. Officials at some resource agency field  offices and state DOTs we spoke with stated that liaisons  implemented streamlining actions at those offices. For example,  officials at one FWS field office stated that the office’s transportation  liaisons are responsible for creating and maintaining programmatic  agreements with the state DOT. In addition, DOT currently has  interagency agreements to provide national transportation liaisons at  resource agencies—including the Corps, FWS, and NMFS—who lead  nationwide efforts, such as meetings among field offices where  officials can share streamlining actions.

Streamlining resource database: DOT maintains an online database  of resources created by DOT and transportation liaisons for  streamlining the NEPA process. The database, which is part of the  Transportation Liaison Community of Practice online portal, includes  programmatic agreements, regional streamlining efforts, and liaison- funding agreements, among other resources. The purpose of this  database is to provide examples of streamlining actions for  transportation liaisons and state DOT officials to use in implementing  these actions with state and federal agency offices to streamline  NEPA processes.

DOT also participates in multi-agency efforts to identify recommendations  for streamlining the NEPA process. Those efforts produced two multi- agency reports that have identified best practices for improving  streamlining of the NEPA process:

Red Book: In 2015, DOT coordinated with multiple federal agencies,  including the resource agencies, to update the Red Book, a resource  to help both federal and state agencies conduct concurrent  environmental review processes and to improve coordination in the  NEPA process for major transportation and other infrastructure  projects. For instance, the Red Book recommended electronic  information systems, including systems that share geographic  information with the agencies involved, as a way to streamline the  NEPA process.

Annual interagency report: DOT and multiple federal agencies,  including the resource agencies, contribute to the Federal Permitting  Improvement Steering Council’s annual report on recommended  actions for federal agencies. In the reports for fiscal years 2017 and  2018, those recommended steps included actions taken by some  resource agency field offices. For example, recommended steps in  the 2017 report included the creation of electronic application  submission systems and training to improve permit and consultation  applications.

DOT officials stated that they continue to seek additional streamlining  opportunities with federal and state entities, including federal resource  agencies and state DOTs, through outreach to those agencies. For  example, the officials told us that they had reached out to the resource  agencies and provided training to help them identify what basic  application information is needed for certain types of projects that are  unlikely to be fully designed at that point in the project’s design. DOT  officials also suggested that expanding the current streamlining actions  that resource agencies have taken, such as utilizing the transportation  liaison positions, would help streamline the process.

The Council on Environmental Quality Has Issued Regulations and Guidance to Streamline NEPA Reviews

CEQ oversees NEPA implementation, reviews and approves federal  agency NEPA procedures, and issues regulations and guidance  documents that govern and guide federal agencies’ interpretation and  implementation of NEPA. In addition, CEQ has focused some of its efforts  on furthering the goal of streamlining environmental reviews. Those  efforts have included publication of various guidance and memorandums  on the effective use of programmatic reviews, according to CEQ  officials. For example, CEQ issued regulations that direct agencies, to  the fullest extent possible, to integrate the NEPA process into project  planning at the earliest possible time to avoid delays and resolve potential  issues, and to perform coordinated and concurrent environmental reviews  to the extent possible to minimize duplication of effort. CEQ officials also  noted that CEQ continues to co-chair the Transportation Rapid Response  Team, a working group of federal agencies that facilitates interagency  coordination and seeks to improve surface transportation project delivery  consistent with environmental guidelines.

CEQ periodically reviews and assesses its guidance and regulations to  improve the effectiveness and timeliness of NEPA reviews, according to a  CEQ official. For example, CEQ reviewed the environmental review  processes of selected agencies in 2015 to identify model approaches that  simplify the NEPA process and reduce the time and cost involved in  preparing NEPA documents. CEQ used this review to identify and  recommend changes to modernize NEPA’s implementation, including  using information technology, such as a web-based application that  identifies environmental data from federal, state, and local sources within  a specific location, to improve the efficiency of environmental reviews.

On August 15, 2017, the President signed an executive order that  directed CEQ to develop a list of actions it will take to enhance and  modernize the environmental review and authorization process. In  September 2017, CEQ outlined its actions to respond to the executive  order in a Federal Register Notice. According to CEQ officials, in  response to the executive order, CEQ is in the process of reviewing its  existing regulations on the implementation of the provisions of NEPA to  identify changes needed to update and clarify its regulations. In June  2018, CEQ published an advance notice of proposed rulemaking to solicit  public comment on potential revisions to its regulations to ensure a more  efficient, timely, and effective NEPA process consistent with the national  environmental policy. In addition, CEQ, along with the Office of  Management and Budget, issued guidance for federal agencies for  processing environmental reviews and authorizations in accordance with  the executive order’s goal of reducing the time for completing  environmental reviews for major infrastructure projects. Finally, CEQ  officials stated that CEQ is leading an interagency working group, which  includes representatives from the resource agencies, to review agency  regulations and policies to identify impediments to the processing of  environmental review and permitting decisions. CEQ anticipates the  working group findings will address a number of issues relating to  environmental reviews, including the environmental consulting and  permitting processes.

The federal government has enacted a number of statutory provisions  aimed at streamlining the environmental review process for highway and  transit projects. However, while Corps, FWS, and NMFS officials believe  that these provisions have helped streamline their permit reviews and  consultations, the lack of data hinders quantification of any trends in the  duration of those reviews. Furthermore, agency and government-wide  efforts to track major infrastructure projects, such as the planned Office of  Management and Budget performance tracking system, will be hindered  without accurate and reliable data. FWS and NMFS do not have  adequate internal control procedures in place to ensure accurate and  reliable data and cannot accurately assess their ability to meet statutory  and regulatory requirements for completing consultations and issuing  biological opinions. Although FWS and NMFS are in the process of  upgrading their data systems, the agencies do not have documented  plans or time frames that identify what controls they will use to ensure  accurate data on the time taken for consultation reviews.

We are making a total of two recommendations, one to the Fish and  Wildlife Service and one to the National Marine Fisheries Service.

Specifically, we are making the following recommendation to the Fish and  Wildlife Service:  The Principal Deputy Director of the Fish and Wildlife Service should  direct the Fish and Wildlife Service to develop plans and time frames for  improving its new consultation tracking system and develop appropriate  internal controls, such as electronic safeguards and other data-entry  procedures, to ensure accurate data on the time taken for consultations.  (Recommendation 1)

We are making the following recommendation to the National Marine  Fisheries Service:  The Assistant Administrator for Fisheries should direct the National  Marine Fisheries Service to develop plans and time frames for improving  its new consultation tracking system and develop appropriate internal  controls, such as electronic safeguards and other data-entry procedures,  to ensure accurate data on the time taken for consultations.  (Recommendation 2)

We provided a draft of the report to the Departments of Transportation,  Defense, Commerce, and Interior and the Council on Environmental  Quality. The Departments of Commerce and Interior each provided  written responses, which are reprinted in appendixes III and IV,  respectively. The Departments of Commerce and Interior agreed with our  recommendations. In addition, the Departments of Transportation,  Defense, Commerce, and Interior and the Council on Environmental  Quality provided technical comments, which we incorporated as  appropriate.

We are sending copies of this report to appropriate congressional  committees, the Secretary of the Department of Transportation, Secretary  of the Department of Defense, Secretary of the Department of the Interior,  Secretary of the Department of Commerce, and other interested parties.  In addition, this report will be available at no charge on GAO’s website at  http://www.gao.gov.

If you or your staff have any questions about this report, please contact  me at (202) 512-2834 or flemings@gao.gov. Contact points for our  Offices of Congressional Relations and Public Affairs may be found on  the last page of this report. GAO staff who made key contributions to this  report are listed in appendix III.

Our work focused on federal-aid highway and transit projects and the  provisions included in the past three surface-transportation  reauthorizations that are intended to streamline the environmental  consulting and permitting processes performed by the three federal  resource agencies: Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS), National Marine  Fisheries Service (NMFS), and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers  (Corps). This report (1) addresses the extent to which identified  streamlining provisions had an impact on the time frames for the  environmental consulting and permitting processes; (2) identifies actions  taken by the resource agencies to streamline their consulting and  permitting reviews and identifies additional streamlining opportunities, if  any; and (3) describes the actions taken by the Council on Environmental  Quality (CEQ) to accelerate highway and transportation projects.

To identify relevant provisions that were aimed at streamlining the  consulting and permitting processes for highway and transit projects, we  reviewed the last three surface transportation reauthorization acts and  relevant federal statutes, regulations, and guidance. The three  reauthorizations we reviewed are as follows:  the Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity Act: A  Legacy for Users (SAFETEA-LU);  the Moving Ahead for Progress in the 21st Century Act (MAP-21); and  the Fixing America’s Surface Transportation Act (FAST Act).

We identified 18 provisions that are intended to streamline various  aspects of the NEPA environmental review process and could potentially  affect the permitting and consultation processes of the three federal  resource agencies. Provisions were grouped into categories developed in  a previous GAO report on project delivery for ease of understanding. In  our review we identified relevant statutory provisions as they had been  amended by the three surface transportation reauthorization acts. Some  of the provisions, as originally enacted, were modified by subsequent  legislation.

To evaluate the extent to which the streamlining provisions had an impact  on the consulting and permitting processes, we requested official responses from each of the three resource agencies on the impact of the  18 provisions we identified on the consulting and permitting processes.  We also conducted interviews with resource agency officials in  Washington, D.C. and the respective field, district, and regional offices to  determine the use and impact of the streamlining provisions from the  surface transportation reauthorization acts.

To quantify the extent to which the streamlining provisions had an impact  on the time frames for completing consultations and permit reviews, we  requested data on the time frames of consulting and permitting from  FWS, NMFS, and Corps data systems for fiscal years 2005 through 2016  for all federally funded highway and transit projects. We requested data  from the resource agencies with a variety of information for each record  that included the start and end dates for each consultation and permit  decision, the type of consultation or permit decision, the project sponsor  or entity requesting the consultation or permit decision, the project type, a  description of the project, and the field, district, or regional office that  received and entered each record. The agencies provided the most  recently available data, which we analyzed. FWS was unable to provide  us reliable data prior to fiscal year 2009; the Corps was unable to provide  us reliable data prior to fiscal year 2011, and NMFS was unable to  provide us reliable data prior to calendar year 2012. Agency officials  stated that data prior to those years were unreliable because of various  factors, such as NMFS’s performing a data migration to a new system  where some records did not transfer properly and Corps changes to its  database in 2011 that made earlier data incomparable to post-2011  permit records. We performed checks to determine the reliability of the  agency data and to identify potential limitations, such as missing data  fields, errors, and discrepancies in calculations between records. We  determined that the data provided by FWS and NMFS were not  sufficiently reliable for examining the impact of the streamlining provisions  on the time frames for completing consultation reviews. We also  determined that the data provided by the Corps was sufficiently reliable to  conduct analysis of permitting time frames, but because the Corps was  unable to provide reliable data prior to fiscal year 2010, we were unable  to examine the impact of streamlining provisions on the time frames for  completing permit reviews. Our discussion in the report of resource  agency data focuses on these limitations. We reviewed agency policies  and procedures on ensuring accurate and reliable data and compared  them with federal standards for internal controls.

To examine the actions used by resource agencies to streamline  consulting and permitting reviews, we interviewed officials in seven FWS  field offices, seven Corps district offices, two NMFS regional offices, three  transit agencies, and seven state departments of transportation (state  DOTs) to discuss leading practices and additional opportunities for  streamlining the consulting and permitting processes, as well as the use  of the respective agency data systems. We reviewed field office  documents and policies used to accelerate consulting and permitting. To  select the federal resource agency field and district offices for interviews,  we used the consultation and permit data collected from the agencies.  We selected the offices based on a number of criteria identified through  analysis of federal resource agency data between fiscal years 2009 and  2016, including:  the most consultations or permit decisions performed; a mix of the average length of time for consultations or permit a mix of the types of consultations (e.g., formal or programmatic) or  permit decisions (e.g., general or individual) performed by office; and a mix of geographic regions.

For the selection of state DOTs, we used a number of selection criteria  including:  the most consultations and permit decisions requested by state; a mix of the average consultation or permit decision time by state; a mix of the types of consultations or permit decisions the states a mix of geographic regions.

To select the transit agencies for interviews, we used a number of  selection criteria including: high ridership numbers, substantial federal  capital funding between 2005 and 2015, and a mix of geographic regions.  We interviewed officials from these offices to identify actions that the  offices use to accelerate the consulting and permitting processes,  challenges in the processes, and potential actions that could be  implemented to further streamline the consulting and permitting  processes. The officials we interviewed from three local transit agencies  did not offer any perspectives on the use of streamlining practices or  provisions related to environmental consulting and permitting, and are  therefore not included in this report. These interviews are not  generalizable to all resource agency, state DOT, or transit agency offices.

In addition, we met with transportation and environmental advocacy  groups to discuss potential additional actions for consulting and  permitting. We also reviewed federal reports and recommendations on  best practices for streamlining environmental reviews for federal  infrastructure projects, including highway and transit. These reports  included the Department of Transportation’s Red Book and the Federal  Permitting Improvement Steering Council’s annual best practices  reports.

To describe actions taken by CEQ, we reviewed guidance and  regulations issued by CEQ and interviewed CEQ officials on the actions  the Council has taken to help streamline the environmental review  process for federal transportation projects. We also interviewed officials at  the Department of Transportation and resource agencies to discuss the  extent to which CEQ actions helped streamline environmental reviews for  transportation projects.

Appendix II: Provisions from Recent Transportation Reauthorization Acts that May Streamline Consultation and Permit Reviews

Description of the provision and the transportation reauthorization act reference 1.

Programmatic approaches: Directs the Department of Transportation (DOT) to allow for programmatic  approaches to conducting environmental reviews for an environmental impact statement and to the extent  determined appropriate, other projects. Requires DOT to seek opportunities with states to enter into  programmatic agreements to carry out environmental and other project reviews.  MAP-21: §§ 1305(a) and 1318(d) and FAST Act: § 1304(b) (codified at 23 U.S.C. § 139(b)(3) and 23 U.S.C.  § 109(note))

Identifying participating agencies: Requires the lead agency to identify, no later than 45 days after the date  of publication of a notice of intent to prepare an environmental impact statement or the initiation of an  environmental assessment, any other federal and non-federal agencies that may have an interest in the  project, and to invite those agencies to become participating agencies in the environmental review process  for the project.  SAFETEA-LU: § 6002(a) as amended by FAST Act: § 1304(d)(1) (codified at 23 U.S.C. § 139(d)(2))

Concurrent reviews: Requires that each participating and cooperating agency carry out its obligations under  other applicable law concurrently and do so in conjunction with the review required under the National  Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), unless doing so would impair the ability of the agency to conduct needed  analysis or otherwise to carry out those obligations, and that each agency should implement mechanisms to  enable the agency to ensure completion of the environmental review process in a timely, coordinated, and  environmentally responsible manner.  SAFETEA-LU: § 6002(a) as amended by MAP-21: § 1305(c) (codified at 23 U.S.C. § 139(d)(7))

Use single NEPA document: Requires to the maximum extent practicable and consistent with federal law,  that the project’s lead agency develop a single NEPA document to satisfy the requirements for federal  approval or other federal action, including permits.  FAST Act: § 1304(d)(2) (codified at 23 U.S.C. § 139(d)(8))

Limiting participating agency responsibilities: Requires that participating agencies provide comments,  responses, studies, or methodologies on areas within the special expertise or jurisdiction of the agency, and  that an agency use the environmental review process to address any environmental issues of concern to the  agency.  FAST Act: § 1304(d)(2) (codified at 23 U.S.C. § 139(d)(9))

Environmental checklist: Requires the development of a checklist by the lead agency, in consultation with  participating agencies, as appropriate, to help identify natural, cultural, and historic resources.  FAST Act: § 1304(e) (codified at 23 U.S.C. § 139(e)(5))

Alternatives analysis: Requires the lead agency to determine the range of alternatives for consideration in  any document that the lead agency is responsible for preparing for a project, and requires that those  alternatives should be used to the extent possible in all reviews and permit processes required for the  project, unless the alternatives must be modified to address significant new information or circumstances or  for the lead agency or a participating agency to fulfill the agency’s responsibilities under NEPA in a timely  manner.  SAFETEA-LU: § 6002(a) and FAST Act: § 1304(f) (codified at 23 U.S.C. § 139(f)(4))

Coordination and scheduling: Requires a coordination plan for public and agency participation in the  environmental review process within 90 days of notice of intent to prepare an EIS or the initiation of an EA,  including a schedule for completion of the environmental review process for the project.  SAFETEA-LU: § 6002(a) as amended by MAP-21: 1305(e) and FAST Act: § 1304(g) (codified at 23 U.S.C.  § 139(g)(1))

Description of the provision and the transportation reauthorization act reference  9.

Issue resolution process: Establishes procedures to resolve issues between state DOTs and relevant  resource agencies, including those issues that could delay or prevent an agency from granting a permit or  approval, and describes lead and participating agency responsibilities.  SAFETEA-LU: § 6002(a) as amended by MAP-21: § 1306, and FAST Act: § 1304(h) (codified at 23 U.S.C. §  139(h))  10.  Financial penalty provisions: Can cause a rescission of funding from the applicable office of the head of an  agency, or equivalent office to which the authority for rendering the decision has been delegated by law, if  that office fails to make a decision within certain time frames under any federal law relating to a project that  requires the preparation of an EIS or EA, including the issuance or denial of a permit, license, or other  approval.  MAP-21: § 1306 as amended by FAST Act: § 1304(h)(3) (codified at 23 U.S.C. § 139(h)(7))  11.  Use of federal highway or transit funds to support agencies participating in the environmental review  process: Allows a public entity to use its highway and transit funds to support a federal (including DOT) or  state agency or Indian tribe participating in the environmental review process on activities that directly and  meaningfully contribute to expediting and improving project planning and delivery.  SAFETEA-LU: § 6002(a) as amended by MAP-21: § 1307, and FAST Act: § 1304(i) (codified at 23 U.S.C. §  139(j))  12.  150-Day statute of limitations: Bars claims seeking judicial review of a permit, license, or approval issued by  a federal agency for highway projects unless they are filed within 150 days after publication of a notice in the  Federal Register announcing the final agency action, or unless a shorter time is specified in the federal law  under which the judicial review is allowed.  SAFETEA-LU: § 6002(a) as amended by MAP-21: § 1308 (codified at 23 U.S.C. § 139(l))  13.  Enhanced technical assistance and accelerated project completion: At the request of a project sponsor or a  governor of the state in which the project is located, requires DOT to provide additional technical assistance  for a project where EIS review has taken 2 years, and establish a schedule for review completion within 4  years. In providing assistance, DOT shall consult, if appropriate, with resource and participating agencies on  all methods available to resolve the outstanding issues and projects delays as expeditiously as possible.  MAP-21: § 1309 (codified at 23 U.S.C. § 139(m))  14.  Early coordination activities in environmental review process: Encourages early cooperation between DOT  and other agencies, including states or local planning agencies, in the environmental review process to  avoid delay and duplication, and suggests early coordination activities. Early coordination includes  establishment of memorandums of agreement with states or local planning agencies.  MAP-21: § 1320 (codified at 23 U.S.C. § 139(note))  15.  Planning documents used in NEPA review: To the maximum extent practicable and appropriate, authorizes  the lead agency for a project and cooperating agencies responsible for environmental permits, approvals,  reviews, or studies under federal law to use planning products, such as planning decisions, analysis, or  studies, in the environmental review process of the project.  MAP-21: § 1310 as amended by FAST Act: § 1305 (codified at 23 U.S.C. § 168(b))  16.  Programmatic mitigation plans used in NEPA review: Allows a state DOT or metropolitan planning  organization to develop programmatic mitigation plans to address potential environmental impacts of future  transportation projects. It also requires that any federal agency responsible for environmental reviews,  permits, or approvals for a transportation project give substantial weight to the recommendations in a state  or metropolitan programmatic mitigation plan, if one had been developed as part of the transportation  planning process, when carrying out responsibilities under NEPA or other environmental law.  MAP-21: § 1311 as amended by FAST Act: § 1306 (codified at 23 U.S.C. § 169(f))

Description of the provision and the transportation reauthorization act reference  17.  Categorical exclusion determination authority: Authorizes DOT to assign and a state to assume  responsibility for determining if projects can be categorically excluded from NEPA review, and allows states  that have assumed that responsibility to also assume DOT’s responsibility for environmental review,  consultation, or other actions required under federal law applicable to activities classified as categorical  exclusions.  SAFETEA-LU: § 6004(a), as amended by MAP-21: § 1312, and FAST Act: § 1307 (codified at 23 U.S.C. §  326)  18.  Surface transportation project delivery program: Authorizes DOT to assign and a state to assume many  federal environmental review responsibilities for highway, public transportation, and railroad projects, to be  administered in accordance with a written agreement between DOT and the participating state.  SAFETEA-LU: § 6005(a), as amended by MAP-21: § 1313 and FAST Act: § 1308 (codified at 23 U.S.C. §  327)

Appendix III: Comments from the Department of Commerce

Appendix IV: Comments from the Department of Interior

Appendix V: GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments

In addition to the contact named above, Brandon Haller (Assistant  Director), Lauren Friedman, Tobias Gillett, Rich Johnson, Delwen Jones,  Hannah Laufe, Jeff Miller, Cheryl Peterson, Malika Rice, Alison Snyder,  Kirsten White, and Elizabeth Wood made significant contributions to this  report.

Since 2005, Congress has passed statutory provisions to help speed up the environmental review process for highway and transit projects. 3 federal agencies (the National Marine Fisheries Service, the Army Corps of Engineers, and the Fish and Wildlife Service) are often called on to review these projects.

We looked at the time it takes to complete these environmental reviews. Agency officials told us that these provisions have helped make the review process faster, but we found that they lack reliable data and tracking systems to know for sure. We recommended that they develop better tracking systems and improve data quality.