Why do HUD environmental reviews take so long?

In a previous post, we discussed choice-limiting actions (CLAs). Initiating construction activity prior to environmental clearance is one of those CLAs. Waiting to start construction until obtaining environmental clearance can be frustrating but it is necessary and required for grant-funded projects. What one may not know, however, is that much of the time it takes to conduct these in-depth reviews is out of the preparer’s control.

An Environmental Review Record (ERR) is far from just a desktop exercise. The process requires highly detailed documentation, coordination with multiple agencies and the responsible entity, as well as mandatory regulatory comment periods.

HUD-funded projects must navigate:

• NEPA (National Environmental Policy Act) and numerous laws and authorities, including historic preservation, endangered species, floodplains, contamination, and noise abatement.
• Extensive documentation, such as agency consultations, Phase I/Phase II Environmental Site Assessments (ESAs), noise studies, floodplain 8-step decision making process, and public notices.
• Multi-agency coordination, which may involve State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO), Tribal Historic Preservation Office (THPO), U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS), U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE), Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), state regulatory agencies, and local governments.
• Required public comment periods, meaning mandatory waiting periods for public review and comment, including:
  • Early Floodplain Notice—15 days
  • Final Floodplain Notice—7 days
  • Combined Finding of No Significant Impact/Notice of Intent to Request a Release of Funds (FONSI/NOI-RROF)—15 days
  • RROF objection period—15 days
• Revisions, often driven by regulatory updates or changes in project scope.

So, what can you do to minimize time in a process with mandatory regulatory review periods?

• Perform an initial project triage to estimate timeline and set expectations. Environmental teams can often pinpoint long lead times prior to the scope even being developed. They look at floodplain maps, proximity to bodies of water, and other things that may trigger a more in-depth review.
• Discuss local procedures for review and approvals ahead of time. For instance, if the responsible entity’s turnaround for review, approvals, and signatures is no less than one week, the team can build that time into the overall timeline in addition to the required regulatory minimum review periods and do its best to minimize schedule creep.
• Involve the environmental team early and often throughout scope development. Once construction starts, make sure to include the environmental team on any changes to the project. Change order work could trigger additional levels of review or consultation.
• Discuss any changes in scope, even if minimal, to the environmental team. Even a small change may result in a big impact to the schedule.
• Better yet, keep the environmental team engaged throughout design. They may catch something that could result in an environmental impact that was not anticipated by other team members.
• Prepare the responsible entity for upcoming deliverables including signatures, public postings, or local public action. For instance, if a milestone requires public action, plan the date of the appropriate meeting well in advance.