5 Bizarre Things About Permitting That Don't Have To Be
By: Danielle Bissett, Jessie Mahr, Becca Madsen
In the world of permitting, there are two distinct areas: (1) environmental reviews under NEPA and a state’s equivalent and (2) the permitting process made up of permit forms and checkboxes. If you’ve ever submitted a permit application and never directly encountered NEPA (environmental assessment or impact statement), it likely snuck by, right under your nose. Almost all federal permits have a NEPA component that needs to be completed before issuance.
There are many different types of permit forms at the local, state, and federal levels. While we won’t dive into the specifics of each, we’ll highlight bizarre aspects that for far too long have become the norm and are opportunities for substantial improvements. Learn about the general overview of permits here.
Let’s talk about the oddities of the permitting process! These are things that maybe never made sense, don’t make sense in 2024, and likely shouldn’t continue to be the case. Some are ripe for tech solutions and some likely just need smart people getting in the room and thinking about how to adjust the process for what we hope it to look like going forward. There are many folks working on solutions—we’ll focus on that soon! But for now, we wanted to uplift some bizarre processes to get your wheels spinning about practical solutions.
Here’s our list of 5 bizarre things about the permitting process:
1. It is still common to print out permit applications—sometimes hundreds or thousands of pages long–to be mailed to regulators. In some cases, applicants must even upload the same files across multiple platforms! We need more online permitting platforms that are also shared between agencies! This would be a game changer in terms of efficiency and transparency which would also improve accountability. Let’s break it down.
Efficiency: The permit applicant fills out forms directly into a digital system, which automatically shaves off a week if you had to mail hard copies and manually transcribe information into agency databases. For example, each Army Corps regulator has 40-60 wetland permits on their desk at any given time, and there are roughly 60,000 permits issued annually. It currently takes each regulator about a week to manually enter the basic data from the permit application into the relevant databases. The Corps’ new e-permitting system is a step in the right direction, but multiple pdfs must still be uploaded. Additionally, anecdotal evidence has estimated at least 10% of permits are deemed “incomplete” and returned to the applicant. This completeness check could be automated to reduce delays. E-permitting can also allow regulators to easily review and share the application with other colleagues for feedback.
Transparency & Accountability: A permittee can track their application through the actual process and see whose desk it’s on, like they can on the Virginia Permitting Enhancement and Evaluation Platform. Ideally, permitting information is also publicly accessible when it has gone out for public commenting. The Permitting Council’s FAST-41 Permitting Dashboard displays basic facts about projects being permitted—yet it’s still revolutionary to have that information digitally collected and available for every project. Permitting systems can also automate accountability and report, for example by accurately logging the time it takes to review a permit. Other policy goals like no net loss of wetlands could be automatically evaluated. Read more about permitting technology opportunities in this interview, and recommendations made specifically to improve the Corps’ new permitting system here.
2.When building a new project, you likely need local, state, and federal permits. Makes sense so far… but there is no clear way to navigate what permits you need in any given jurisdiction. We need to make it easy to know what applies to you, and where other projects are occurring in your region. Depending on where you are in the country, the same type of project (e.g. road, restoration, or solar panel) likely needs different types of permits and processes to be followed. And, depending on the regulator, that process unfortunately could look different than how you might have done it before in the same area and same type of project. We need to make it clearer for the permit applicants to know what kind of permit they need, and we need to make it easier to coordinate between multiple agencies. Right now, permitting is a labyrinth of competing jurisdictions and reviews with no overarching authority to improve the overall process. Further, there is no complete database of what projects are being proposed, in development, or completed in your area! This situation is ripe for improvement, from better coordination across agencies to integrated data systems. For example, organizations like BeInformed have automated processes on what kinds of rules apply, and the Council on Environmental Quality is proposing data standards for better permit data collation and access.
3. When evaluating where to site a new project, permit applicants and agencies are using data that is 5,10,15, and sometimes 50 (!!) years out of date. We need higher-resolution, up-to-date information to better site projects and lower the barrier to avoiding impact at the start. If done properly, the permit applicant can set their project up for early success by knowing they're coming to the table with regulators avoiding as much impact as possible. The reality is, especially for interstate projects, you often don’t have access to the land ahead of time and are completing most, if not all, of the siting analysis from GIS data—that’s not inherently a bad thing. For instance, the access roads shown in the example GIF would ideally follow a straight path (illustrated by dotted red lines).
However, they divert to avoid wetlands (in blue), illustrating how crucial accurate environmental data like the National Wetlands Inventory (NWI) is for project planning. Yet GIS data is frequently decades out of date, and critical elements—such as rights-of-way locations—are often undigitized, making them inaccessible. To improve siting outcomes, we need updated and digitized environmental data to support smarter, impact-avoiding design from the start.
4. When the regulatory agency has staff turnover, applicants find themselves back at square one. We need systems that provide thorough reviews but can withstand turnover, document decision-making, and reduce unnecessary repetition and iteration of project proposals. Over the course of 30 informational interviews focusing on the approval process of restoration projects, many interviewees experienced 2-5 project managers during the review process. Rather than picking up where predecessors left off, new staff often conducted fresh reviews and issued new comments—sometimes revisiting issues that had already been resolved. Leadership at the Army Corps recently issued new directives indicating that aspects of restoration projects previously reviewed without issues may be closed to further comment, aiming to reduce the “groundhog effect” caused by staff turnover. This agency shift could help permit applicants maintain momentum and avoid unnecessary delays.
5. We use the same permitting process for both environmentally destructive and restorative projects–this needs to change! Designed primarily to prevent environmental harm, the current permitting approach is ill-suited for projects focused on reversing damage and restoring ecosystems. As a result, restoration projects are often treated as potential threats, leading to delays and wasted resources. This mismatch is why, for example, an 800-mile pipeline across Alaska requires less permits than a restoration project in California. Ouch. Given the scale of restoration needed to address climate change and biodiversity loss, the current system is no longer practical. Permitting smaller projects is already a challenge, and as larger, more complex initiatives emerge, these delays will only increase, slowing down critical efforts to restore ecosystems, support biodiversity, and build climate resilience. Developing specialized permit teams and processes for restoration projects would help ensure these projects receive appropriate and efficient review, addressing their unique characteristics and urgent timelines.
By addressing these issues, we believe the government can get to ‘yes’ or ‘no’ faster without cutting corners. For more information check out our recent blog on a few guiding strategies we identified to improve the environmental review and permitting process for ecological restoration and nature-based solutions.
Reach out to share what you think is bizarre, outdated, or simply unnecessary about the permitting process! And, we are here to ideate and implement solutions—reach out if you’d like to as well.