An Evaluation of the Oregon Department of Transportation’s Environmental Streamlining Efforts: A Focus on CETAS

Principal Investigators: Connie Ozawa, Ph.D. and Jennifer Dill, Ph.D.

Sponsor: Oregon Department of Transportation and Federal Highway Administration

Timeline: Final report issued November 2005

Project Objectives
The Oregon Department of Transportation (ODOT) responded to the federal call in the late 1990s to streamline the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) by (1) implementing organizational and procedural changes internal to the agency, (2) funding ODOT-dedicated staff positions in state and federal resource agencies, and (3) convening regular meetings with state and federal agencies with NEPA-related regulatory responsibilities. This latter effort evolved into the CETAS (Collaborative Environmental and Transportation Agreement for Streamlining) process that includes a management and a technical team element.

This project assessed the effectiveness of these efforts. Phase I of the study was designed to document the perceptions and behaviors in ODOT employees at the onset of ODOT organizational and procedural changes and to compare the responses to ones obtained from ODOT employees after some passage of time. Phase II of the study was designed to assess the effectiveness of the CETAS process and documents factors that affect project timelines in Oregon state highway projects for pre-CETAS projects.  For reasons explained in the final report, the comparisons before and after implementation of these major changes was difficult. Important baseline information was obtained, however.

Project Findings
The Phase I surveys established that:

• ODOT employees view environmental reviews as a critical component of ODOT work,
• Environmental reviews are seen as time-consuming, with insufficient time allocated to
• staff for their completion,
• The environmental review process is viewed as unclear,
• ODOT employees are uncertain that the reviews result in social or environmental
• benefits,
• Consultation with other agencies during ODOT environmental reviews is low.

In addition, common factors that potentially add to project timelines were identified. The top
five reasons cited were:

• Political process
• Change in scope
• Stakeholder influence
• Unanticipated site conditions
• Ambiguous purpose and need.

Phase II found consistent results with respect to extended project timelines. A review of the ODOT files for 12 highway projects, supplemented by interviews, revealed that the top two reasons for delay were design changes and concerns raised by citizens and property owners. These sources can be related to environmental concerns, but are not solely environmental issues. Design changes are sometimes made to reduce environmental impacts identified during the review process. Design changes can result from changes in priorities, responses to land owner concerns, and other issues. The next two factors contributing to extended timelines were communications and staffing problems (including turnover) and funding availability. Factors relating solely to environmental issues (e.g. endangered species listings, wetlands mitigation, etc.) were identified as a source of delay in one-third or fewer of the projects examined. Moreover, an analysis of the actual project timelines did not show that any of the environmental process variables were related to longer overall review periods. In fact, some of the environmental process variables were associated with shorter review periods. In the case of overall timeline, from Notice of Intent (NOI) to Record of Decision (ROD), six variables were
correlated with longer timelines:

• Number of business relocations;
• Number of design changes;
• Initial estimate of the total project cost;
• Adding a bikeway to the project;
• The final length (in miles) of the project; and
• Re-doing studies (e.g. noise, air quality, etc.) that became out-of-date due to the length (in time) of the project.

These variables all relate to the size, scope, and complexity of the project and not directly to the environmental review process. Environmental issues may have a stronger impact on the time between the NOI and a draft document or between the draft and final environmental documents. For example, a larger number of acres of wetlands affected and mitigated was associated with a longer time between the NOI and the draft EIS or EA. The strongest correlation was between the number of comment letters from state and federal agencies and the time between the draft and final documents. Other variables associated with longer timeframes between the draft and final relate to the size and scope of the project, particularly if the project changed in length. The CETAS process, including early consultation and coordination, monthly technical meetings, and implementation special projects such as environmental baseline reports and banking programs, can address many, but not all, of these sources of delay, if implemented successfully.

Finally, participants in the CETAS process were interviewed about their perceptions and opinions about the benefits and challenges of the CETAS process. Benefits interviewees identified included:

• "Common sense" discussions, unconstrained by formal lines of agency missions and authority
• Early consultation with resource agencies
• Predictability in review process
• Discussion of "trade offs" with multiple perspectives present
• Opportunities to strengthen social relationships
• Understanding other agencies missions and constraints
• Potential for more comprehensive discussion, to include land use issues

The interviewees also identified a number of past and future challenges for CETAS:

• Need for ongoing and consistent expression of ODOT’s commitment to CETAS
• Need to increase sense of ownership among participating agencies
• Importance of ensuring continuity through institutionalization and documentation of agreements
• Need to increase education and exposure of ODOT staff to CETAS
• Desire for periodic review of CETAS mission
• Importance of periodic reaffirmation of leadership (in ODOT and all participating agencies)

Read the Final Report