Our current approach to environmental permitting is untenable—and a major barrier to the scale of effort required to meet our climate and infrastructure goals. The U.S. needs a permitting system that can adapt to today’s project demands, improve efficiency, and facilitate timely action.
Our goal is to advance ecological restoration at scale, which requires bringing the permitting process into the 21st Century. We can make the permitting process more responsive and effective for the projects that restore our landscapes and fortify our communities. Our approach centers on collaboration, technology, and forward-thinking policies, emphasizing that we can streamline approvals for restoration projects while maintaining the strong protections that make our regulatory system one of the world’s best.
National environmental laws adopted over 50 years ago were designed to address widespread industrial contamination and habitat loss. They are landmark achievements for public health and better stewardship of the country’s land, water, air, and biodiversity. Despite the alignment between these laws and the intentions of ecological restoration and NbS, agencies’ regulatory processes are significantly impeding these efforts. Complex regulatory changes and opaque agency procedures mean that environmental reviews and permitting are slower, more resource-intensive, and less effective—for all involved—at a time when it is critical to act quickly. The process is disconnected from outcomes that deliver tangible value; to the environment, communities, project proponents, and the regulators charged with protecting our ecosystems and public health. As a result, ecological restoration sites are often selected based on ease of permitting rather than restoration potential—ultimately sacrificing opportunities for the environmental gains the country needs to address climate change and biodiversity loss.
The following strategies provide actionable steps to improve the environmental review and permitting process, enhance coordination among agencies, and achieve better outcomes for all stakeholders.
-
Interagency coordination is key to improving environmental review and permitting timelines. By establishing regional task forces across federal, state, and local agencies, we can streamline the review and approval of restoration projects, ensuring alignment and reducing duplication of efforts. Building on models like the Federal Permitting Improvement Steering Council, these task forces can identify bottlenecks, share best practices, and promote transparency in decision-making. A dedicated unit within the Permitting Council focused on natural infrastructure would further accelerate NbS projects by providing specialized oversight.
-
Albert Einstein said, “You can’t solve a problem with the same kind of thinking that created it,” which applies to how we need to improve the implementation of our environmental laws. Updating environmental reviews and permitting requires reimagining what the process needs to look like today to speed up progress. Implementing e-permitting systems, for example, can replace all-too-common and outdated, paper-based processes, improving speed and accountability. AI tools can be used to draft routine environmental assessments, freeing up agency resources for more complex reviews. Specialized permit forms for restoration projects should be developed to address the unique characteristics of these initiatives. These changes would speed up permit issuance, enabling faster project implementation without compromising the integrity of environmental reviews.
-
Environmental review and permitting improvements must also address the broader regulatory framework that governs land use and development. A more integrated approach would prioritize restoration and conservation in all development projects, minimizing environmental impacts from the outset. Transitioning to a “net gain” policy, where environmental restoration is a guiding principle, would align public and private investments with long-term sustainability goals. Improving compensatory mitigation policies and incentivizing voluntary restoration efforts will create a more proactive regulatory environment, delivering better outcomes for both the environment and the economy. Building off of 30x30 and similar initiatives, each state and/or region needs a conservation and restoration strategy to ensure long-term protection of natural resources that enhance and support climate-resilience goals.
Every day, more people, communities, organizations, practitioners, engineers, and government agencies express frustration with the permitting process for ecological restoration and nature-based solutions. This process is slowing down the work that is urgently needed to restore ecosystems, protect species, and safeguard communities and infrastructure from climate change. As momentum builds around permitting improvements, the months and years ahead offer a critical opportunity. We have the chance to accelerate restoration, enhance climate resilience, and create a healthier environment for people and wildlife. By improving the permitting system, we can reduce barriers, streamline processes, and ensure that ecological restoration and nature-based solutions play a key role in building a more resilient and sustainable future.
Our Initiatives
Fund Nature, Not Paperwork
Leaders around the globe committed to restoring 30% of the world’s degraded ecosystems (Target 2 of the UN Convention on Biological Diversity’s 2023 Kunming-Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework). But right now, the costs of permitting burn through up to ⅓ of a restoration project’s budget. We think restoration permits should take less than 1 year to approve. We are identifying policy and programmatic changes to speed up the approval processes for restoration projects. Restoration projects are fundamentally different from impactful development projects, and regulators should create categorical exemptions, a fast-track path, interagency coordination opportunities, and transparent processes to speed the approval of these projects.
Leverage technology to speed up and increase accountability in permitting
We approach this work holistically through advancing data standards, user-centered tool development, hiring tech talent and supporting shared services across agencies. Some examples include synthesizing stakeholder input on a new US Army Corps of Engineers’ e-permitting system, conducting detailed user testing of the US Fish and Wildlife’s IPaC tool, partnering on a user centered design process to envision a better RIBITS (tool used by wetland, stream, and species mitigation stakeholders), supporting environmental technology & data summits and advising on topics like data standards in environmental permitting, and smart applications of AI to speed up the process.
Streamline NEPA
There are several opportunities to streamline NEPA:
One way to protect the wetlands the Supreme Court says don't matter (NEPA Sect 101 as a way to protect WL and streams, Nov 2023)
EPIC, FAS, and NEPAccess joint comments on NEPA Phase 2 Proposed Revisions (Sept 2023)
Top ten changes to NEPA in the debt limit deal (June 2 2023)
Top 20 ideas for conservation in Senate NEPA legislation (May 2023)
Top Ten Ideas for Better NEPA Outcomes (Feb 2023)
-
![]()
Restoration Streamlining Database
EPIC created an interactive database of 80+ examples of legislation, policies, programs, and case studies that offer new pathways to buying environmental outcomes, and finding ways to reduce delays in permitting environmental restoration projects. The database is a helpful resource for policymakers and agency staff at the state and federal level. The information provides the raw ‘ingredients’ that could be used to replicate Pay for Success and Restoration Permit Streamlining in other contexts.
-
![]()
Permitting Technology Database
There are dozens of tools used across government agencies, NGOs and software companies to manage the permitting process. We made an inventory of these digital permitting tools to daylight tools for interested users, open up lines of dialogue for cross-application learning, and highlight where investments are needed in permitting tech.
-
![]()
Wetlands Impact Tracker: Revealing Public Notices for Public Good
We used AI to extract data from US Army Corps of Engineers public notices to make it easier for agencies, advocates and developers to see where projects were being sited and engage in the planning process. By automating collating the information, this dashboard follows federal permitting developments and their impacts on sensitive lands and waters along the Gulf Coast.
-
![]()
Streamlining National Mitigation Bank Reviews
Our research reveals persistent delays in the approval of a class of wetland and species habitat restoration projects called ‘mitigation banks.’ These delays hinder the availability of offsets for impacted waterways. We’ve identified the top barriers in the US Army Corps of Engineers’ review process and highlight dozens of solutions that could be implemented.
-
![]()
Streamlining State Mitigation Bank Reviews
We investigated what speeds and slows conservation bank approval timelines, and what ecological and economic consequences come from delayed processes. We identified that the total time to permit a conservation bank by the California Department of Fish and Game is between 761 - 1,740 days! Check out our research on bottlenecks and solutions to speed up mitigation bank reviews.
-
![]()
Streamlining of Voluntary vs Compliance Restoration
The fish don’t care who pays for restoration, but some policy-makers pick winners (voluntary restoration) and losers (restoration for compliance purposes). We explore the arguments surrounding streamlined permitting efforts for restoration projects and challenge assumptions that drive a preference for voluntary projects.
-
![]()
Pay for Success
Pay for Success is an approach that allows government agencies to contract for environmental outcomes as easily as procuring office supplies or services. The approach saves costs and streamlines administration and oversight over and above traditional grants for restoration projects. EPIC works on federal- and state-level contracting reform that makes it easier for government to define what outcomes they want to purchase and pave the way for efficient delivery of those outcomes.
Publications
