1. Commenters suggested legislation could authorize FHWA to certify State environmental review programs to operate in lieu of NEPA and other Federal environmental requirements.[339]
2. Commenters suggested that limiting the type of section 4(f) resources that are subject to section 4(f) requirements would reduce delays to the environmental process.[340]
3. Many delays during the environmental review process occur as a result of disputes between the FHWA and the resource agencies. To limit such disputes, commenters proposed legislation to limit resource agency comments to issues within the jurisdiction and expertise of the resource agency and could require agencies to accept the evaluation of the FHWA on traffic, engineering and cost issues.[341]
4. The NEPA/404 MOUs have not been as helpful in expediting the NEPA process as anticipated.[342] The MOUs do not impose any enforceable limit on resource agency reviews. Legislation could impose deadlines on resource agency review and require the FHWA to process the NEPA document where the resource agencies failed to submit timely comments.[343]
5. Commenters stated that legislation could establish a variety of safe harbors for NEPA documents that meet certain standards. For example, an alternatives analysis could be deemed adequate if it includes two alternatives that minimize significant effects of the project.[344]
6. Financing and construction of projects are subject to extensive litigation delays. Commenters suggested that a shorter statute of limitations, such as 30 days established under California law, could reduce environmental litigation delays.[345]