Environmental Streamlining:
What Is It? Do We Need It?

The Federal Perspective:
What is Environmental Streamlining?

Streamlining the NEPA process is challenging and difficult; it means changing ordinary practice to speed up project delivery. When has it occurred? Well, there are few objective indicators, but you know it when you see it.

Although only three percent of Federally funded transportation projects require a full NEPA review (these projects account for only thirteen percent of federal transportation expenditure), streamlining the process has gained attention of Congress, which provided legal provision for it in TEA-21 (Section 1309). Under the statute, "streamlining" involves changing the review process from a sequential process, to a coordinated and concurrent one in which the various federal resource agencies deal with their issues simultaneously and in parallel instead of one after another. Under provisions of TEA-21, states are allowed to streamline their state environmental reviews as well. The statute also provides for the use of dispute resolution tools, calling on the Secretary of the DOT to work with his or her peers in other agencies to negotiate resolution of their differences and to start dispute resolution-type activities before a project review becomes stalled. Finally, the statute allows use of transportation funds to pay the salaries of staff in environmental resource agencies as a means to get them involved in streamlining activities and expedite NEPA reviews. It is important to be aware that the streamlining provision does NOT change any existing environmental laws or requirements; it just calls on federal agencies to make the process work better.

The US DOT signed a national Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) with six other federal agencies agreeing to streamline the NEPA process. The purpose of the MOU is to make a better transition from transportation planning work to the project review process. The MOU establishes a common understanding among these agencies at the highest level that streamlining exists, that it is all of their responsibilities, and they're seriously going to work at doing a better job.

Will it work? Who knows? The National MOU identifies two purposes for streamlining: to reduce time spent on the NEPA review and to enhance the environment. If transportation agencies are really to join in effective partnership with environmental agencies, however, they are going to have to buy into the value that their NEPA reviews are about enhancing the environment, not just about complying with a regulation. Some agencies are not happy about this, but it is very important for making streamlining happen.

To breathe life into the MOU, or into any inter-agency partnership, one must get real people together and get down to the nitty-gritty things that can be done to streamline the process for a specific project, in terms of schedules and actions. FHWA has established a web-site to provide information on streamlining as well as a toolkit, and will be drafting guidance as well as a rulemaking. Although we're trying to develop performance measures that help track how long the process takes for a project, this is a lot easier said than done. For example, when does the clock start? When does it end? Should a time-out be counted?

We believe that there are many things that can be done to make the process work better, but it will take serious commitment to change at national, state, and local levels. Will streamlining happen? It depends on the real people involved in projects. One needs to invest in individual relationships, and begin working with people, not just with "agencies."

The Local/Private Sector Perspective:
Do We Need It? How to Do it.

What is streamlining? Is it cutting corners? Is it taking shortcuts? Is it finding ways to get around the regulations? Is it reducing timeframes? Eliminating redundancy? Substituting state law for federal law? Exempting certain projects?

In a lot of places around the country, it's all of those things, and in some cases, it's none of those things. There's a strong perception among the environmental community that environmental streamlining means you're going to cut some corners, you're going to take some shortcuts, and you're not going to do what's right to protect the environment while you're going about your business of providing sound transportation accessibility and mobility.

Here is a true story. There was a bridge replacement project. An 80-foot bridge was deemed structurally deficient. The agency was going to replace the bridge on the exact same alignment, not increasing capacity whatsoever, and the proposed detour during construction was to be one block over, one block down and one block back. At the scoping meeting, the FHWA representative was arguing that there should be an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) because of the significant impacts to the traveling public for the detour that would carry about 11,000 vehicles per day. As the representative for the project client I initially said to FHWA, "You've got to be kidding me! This is not an EIS type project. This is a very simple 'Categorical Exclusion' and the NEPA process chosen to advance the project has a lot to do with the amount of time and level of investment associated with advancing it.

"They ended up doing a simple categorical exclusion. But when I went home that night I asked myself "What the heck am I doing?" I decided we should have another meeting tomorrow, and I would go back and argue for the EIS because instead of finishing the project in two months and sending the agency a bill for $20,000, we (PB Ohio) could take 4-6 years developing the EIS and send our client a bill for $2.5 million dollars. Same project--different processes. Ohio has gone through a process very similar to California on the merged NEPA/404 process. There are six agencies participating and every agency but one has signed off on the merged process except the Ohio EPA, which has the delegated authority to provide water quality certification (Section 401) to the Corps of Engineers for the 404 permit. EPA has difficulties participating in the streamlined process because they do not feel they can demonstrate what the anti-degradation alternative would be for the project at a point in time when they don't have the necessary engineering to make that decision. Therefore, they are not willing to sign-off on the entire agreement because they feel like they may be giving up something at a stage too early in the project development. What then is the solution?

Getting the agreement needed to streamline any process can be challenging, but if you take the time to understand what other folks' interests are, it makes it a lot easier for you to make yourself understood and get your own needs met in the process.

Rule #1: Always adopt the attitude, wherever you are, of "What can I do to make this process easier?"

Rule #2: Be willing to work outside the project arena. Be sure you get everything done sooner rather than later. It's similar to a pre-nuptial agreement and you may benefit by having everything spelled out at the outset, because when disagreement comes up it's too late.

The common denominator in streamlining, though, is people. It's not "agencies," it's the people, the individuals you work with, and you really have to understand how to fill the needs of those individual people. If you're going to have a successful project, it's going to be because the people that are working within the confines of an agreement have made up their minds that it is going to be successful. That is the goal--getting to the decision, the right decision, not delay and avoidance.