Information on Timeliness on Completing the NEPA Process

Projects Completed in FY 02

As in past years, FHWA compiled a list of projects that completed the NEPA process, (signed a Record of Decision (ROD)) in Fiscal Year 2002 (FY 02). From this list, the projects that were completed in 3 years or less were identified, as well as the projects completed in 5 years or more. These two times were selected because 3 years is the FHWA Environmental Vital Few Goal for timely completion of NEPA, and 5 years was the time identified by the House Subcommittee for Transportation and Infrastructure in 2000 as indicating delay.

Two set of questions were created - one for each of the lists - to gather information about the projects and to determine if there were any major reasons for a quick or a long completion of the NEPA process.

Seven projects completed NEPA in 3 or less years in FY02. The Environmental Specialists in the FHWA division offices for the states of these projects were sent the appropriate questionnaire. Twenty-six projects completed NEPA in 5 years or more in FY02. The Environmental Specialists in the FHWA division offices for the states of these projects were sent the questionnaire for those projects. We were unable to gather information on one of those projects, so the data is based on twenty-five projects.

FY02 Projects Completed by NEPA in 3 Years or Less

Information gathered from the questionnaires:

#1 reason for completing the environmental review process in this time:

Early agency coordination (3/7)
Supplemental as a result of a court ruling (1/7)
Established project milestones (1/7)
Early public involvement (1/7)
Political pressure (1/7)

Was this project identified by the state as being high priority?

Yes (6/7)
No (1/7)

5/7 projects required a section 404 permit, and had COE as a cooperating agency.

None of the projects had negotiated timeframes.

3/7 of the projects had MOU for cultural resources: 3/7 had no MOUs or PAs for the project. (1 had a NEPA/404 merger)

Reasons for FY02 Projects Completed by NEPA in 5 Years or More

Information gathered from the questionnaires:

#1 reason for delays in completing the project:

Low Priority by the state (6/25)
Complex nature of the project (4/25)
Section 106 consultation (3/25)
Change in scope (3/25)
Poor consultant work (2/25)
Other reasons includes one of each of the following (7/25): lack of funding; lawsuit; project involved 2 states; new alignment; document change from EA to EIS; controversy about water supply protection; allowed time for city to develop document/plan.

Was this project identified by the state as being high priority?

No (11/25)
Yes (9/25)
Sorta (4/25)
N/A (1/25)

Were there negotiated timeframes?

No (22/25)
Yes (1/25)
Used NEPA/404 process (2/25)

Type of project?

13/25 - new alignment
6/25 - widening and/or interchange
6/25 - other

15/25 did not have any interagency teams for the project; 10/25 did have an interagency team of some type.

13/25 responded that there was no innovative or unique process or procedure used in the project.

12/25 projects had a MOU or PA for the project (the majority (9) of them being for the 106 cultural resources); 13/25 had none.

For questions or feedback on this subject matter content, please contact Deirdre Remley at 202-366-0524.