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. 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. 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. 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. Second, the resource agencies could not provide enough reliable data for  us to analyze changes in consultation and permit review durations over  time. 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. 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. 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. Conclusions

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. 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. (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. The Departments of Commerce and Interior agreed with our  recommendations. Appendix I: Scope and Methodology

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). 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.
Why GAO Did This Study

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.

What GAO Found

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.

What GAO Recommends

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.