The National Environmental Policy Act:: Streamlining NEPA

^Pr^ep^ar^{ed f}^o^r^M^e^m^b^ers^an^d^Com^mⁱ^t^t^ees^of^C^ong^r^e^ss

In recent years, the time needed to comply with various environmental laws has been the subject
of public scrutiny and debate in Congress. As a result, numerous administrative and legislative
efforts (both proposed and enacted) have intended to expedite or streamline the environmental
compliance process. Although methods to do so vary, streamlining measures are often proposed
or implemented when the participation of multiple local, state, tribal, or federal agencies is
necessary to comply with various environmental requirements. Streamlining measures may be
applied to various environmental compliance processes, such as federal permitting or approvals.
A major focus of streamlining efforts has been the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969
(NEPA; 42 U.S.C. §§ 4321, et seq.), the implementation of which is overseen by the Council on
Environmental Quality (CEQ). Among other provisions, NEPA requires federal agencies to
analyze environmental impacts and involve the public before proceeding with any major federal
action significantly affecting the human environment.
Many agencies have implemented administrative and legislative streamlining actions, including
the Department of Agriculture (USDA), Department of Transportation (DOT), Department of the
Interior (DOI), Army Corps of Engineers (the Corps), Department of Energy (DOE), and Federal
Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC). Streamlining efforts vary from agency to agency but
usually involve one or more of the following elements: designating a specific agency as the lead
agency responsible for ensuring compliance with applicable requirements, directing the lead
agency to develop a coordinated environmental review process, specifying certain lead agency
authority (e.g., to establish project deadlines or develop dispute resolution procedures), codifying
existing regulations, delegating specific federal authority to states, designating specific activities
as being categorically excluded or exempt from certain elements of NEPA, and establishing limits
on judicial review.
Streamlining proposals have generated a great deal of controversy. Proponents of such measures
argue that streamlining efforts are needed to cut through the “bureaucratic red tape” often
associated with federal project delivery. Others counter that such actions are an attempt to weaken
environmental protection and lessen public participation in federal decision-making processes.
This report discusses elements of NEPA relevant to streamlining, issues associated with
determining project delays attributed to NEPA, common streamlining methods, and recently
enacted legislative and administrative streamlining activities.

Introduc tion ..................................................................................................................................... 1
Elements of NEPA Relevant to Streamlining..................................................................................3
Backgr ound ............................................................................................................................... 3
The NEPA Process....................................................................................................................4
Levels of NEPA Analysis....................................................................................................4
Determining When an EIS Is Required...............................................................................5
Elements of an EIS..............................................................................................................5
Agency Participation...........................................................................................................6
NEPA as an “Umbrella” Statute..........................................................................................7
Issues in Attributing NEPA Implementation to Project Delays.................................................7
Determining Delays Related to NEPA Document Preparation...........................................7
The Role of Litigation in NEPA’s Implementation.............................................................9
Common Streamlining Provisions..........................................................................................10
Establishing a Coordinated Compliance Process..............................................................10
Codifying Existing Regulations in Law.............................................................................11
Delineating Lead Agency Authority..................................................................................11
Delegating Authority to States..........................................................................................12
Specifying Categorically Excluded or Exempt Projects...................................................12
Establishing Limits on Judicial Review............................................................................13
Overview of Existing Streamlining Activities...............................................................................13
Legislation Enacted.................................................................................................................14
Healthy Forests Restoration Act.......................................................................................14
SAFET E A-LU .................................................................................................................. 15
The Energy Policy Act of 2005.........................................................................................16
Appropriations for the Department of the Interior and Related Agencies........................17
The Water Resources Development Act of 2007..............................................................18
Administrative Actions............................................................................................................19
Forest Service Timber-Related Activities.........................................................................19
FERC Liquified Natural Gas Facility Operations.............................................................19
NEPA Task Forces...................................................................................................................20
CEQ NEPA Task Force.....................................................................................................20
Energy Task Force............................................................................................................21
Transportation Task Force.................................................................................................22
House Resources Committee NEPA Task Force...............................................................22
Conclusion ..................................................................................................................................... 22
For Additional Information............................................................................................................23
The U.S. Department of Agriculture.......................................................................................23
The Department of Energy......................................................................................................24
The Department of the Interior................................................................................................24
The Department of Transportation..........................................................................................24

Table A-1. The House Resources Committee NEPA Task Force Recommendations To
Update NEPA.............................................................................................................................25
Appendix. NEPA Task Force Recommendations..........................................................................25
Author Contact Information..........................................................................................................32

A multitude of factors can affect the timing of federal project delivery. Factors that may
contribute to delays in a federal project include changes in the planning and design process,
changes in funding priorities, construction complexities, local controversy or community
opposition to a project, and compliance with myriad local, state, tribal or federal laws. With
regard to the latter, certain federal actions such as highway construction projects and permitting
for mining operations, cattle grazing, forest thinning, and energy development projects may
trigger compliance with literally dozens of statutory and regulatory requirements. These, in turn,
may require the participation or input of possibly dozens of local, state, tribal, or federal agencies.
In recent years, the time it takes to comply with various environmental laws has been the subject
of public scrutiny and debate in Congress. One law that has been the subject of particular scrutiny
has been the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA; 42 U.S.C. §§ 4321-4347).
Signed into law by President Nixon on January 1, 1970, NEPA declared a national policy to
protect the environment and created a Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) in the Executive
Office of the President. To implement the national policy, NEPA requires that environmental
factors be considered when federal agencies make decisions and that a detailed statement of
environmental impacts be prepared for all major federal actions significantly affecting the human
environment.
The “detailed statement” referenced in the law is now known as an environmental impact
statement (EIS). CEQ regulations for implementing NEPA, among other provisions, introduced
additional levels of environmental review—those for environmental assessments (EAs) and
categorical exclusions. Generally, EAs are prepared to determine whether the impacts of a federal
action will be “significant” under NEPA. An action is categorically excluded from the
requirement to prepare an EIS or an EA if it is of a type or in a category known to have no
significant environmental impacts. (For more detail on these requirements, see the discussion
regarding “The NEPA Process” in the following section of this report; also see CRS Report
RS20621, Overview of National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) Requirements, by Kristina
Alexander, and CRS Report RL33152, The National Environmental Policy Act: Background and
Implementation, by Linda Luther.)
The preparation of EISs is probably the best-known requirement of NEPA. However, projects
requiring an EIS represent a small fraction of all federal actions. For example, from 1986 to 2006, ¹
an average of 255 final EISs were filed with EPA each year. By comparison, in 1997, CEQ ²
reported that federal agencies estimated that approximately 50,000 EAs were prepared annually.
Determining the total number of federal actions subject to NEPA is difficult, as most agencies
track only the number of actions requiring an EIS. One agency that tracks all its projects is the
Department of Transportation’s (DOT) Federal Highway Administration (FHWA). In 2005,
FHWA reported that just over 84% of all highway projects were classified as categorical
exclusions (representing just over 81.5% of FHWA project funding), 9% required an EA (5.5% of

¹^{CEQ’s “}^N^um^be^{r of}^{EISs File}^{d 1}⁹⁷⁰^to²⁰⁰⁶^,”^a^v^a^ila^ble^a^t^htt^p^://c^e^q^.e^h.d^o^e^.^g^o^v^/^ne^pa^/ne^p^aⁿ^e^t^.^h^tm^.
²^Couⁿ^c^{il o}ⁿ^Eⁿ^vⁱ^ro^nm^eⁿ^ta^{l Qua}^lity^,^T^h^{e Na}^tⁱ^oⁿ^a^l^Eⁿ^vi^ron^m^en^t^a^l^P^o^lⁱ^{cy A}^c^t^:^A^S^t^ud^{y of}^It^{s E}^f^f^ectⁱ^ven^{ess A}^f^t^e^{r T}^w^en^t^y^-
^fⁱ^{ve Y}^e^a^r^s^{, J}^a^nua^r^y¹⁹⁹^7,^p.^28,^a^v^a^ila^ble^a^t^http:^//c^e^q^.e^h.^doe^.g^ov^/ⁿ^e^p^a^/^ne^pa^ne^t.^htm^.

project funding), and approximately 7% required an EIS (13% of project funding).³ Although
they may be small in number compared with all federal actions, projects requiring an EIS often
include those with the greatest impacts and highest stakeholder interest.
Stakeholders such as state and local project sponsors and industry representatives with an interest
in the implementation of federal actions charge that meeting NEPA’s environmental review
requirements is sometimes done inefficiently and can be overly time-consuming. Such critics
charge that the law creates a complicated array of regulations and logistical delays that stall
agency action.
Environmental organizations look at the NEPA process as an essential tool to help agencies plan
and manage federal actions in a responsible way by requiring policymakers and project sponsors
to consider the environmental implications of their actions before decisions are made. They also
view the NEPA process as an important mechanism to provide the public with an opportunity to
be involved in agency planning efforts. They argue that expediting what is supposed to be a
deliberative process is not necessarily in the best interest of the public or the environment.
Further, they argue that blaming the environmental compliance process for project delays is
misplaced. They contend that if federal projects are, in fact, delayed by the NEPA process, it is
because agencies required to participate in the process are overburdened and insufficiently
funded, staffed, or equipped to meet the demand.
As a result of the debate between stakeholders regarding NEPA’s implementation, numerous
administrative and legislative actions have been proposed to expedite compliance with NEPA.
The activities associated with such proposals are often collectively referred to as streamlining. No
regulatory or legislative definition of streamlining exists. It is defined differently by different
stakeholders or agencies for different classes of projects. However, the term is often used to
describe a process or procedures intended to accelerate decision making, especially when the
input of multiple federal, state, tribal, or local agencies is required to comply with multiple
environmental laws, regulations, or executive orders. For example, FHWA may propose a
highway construction project that affects wetlands that are home to an endangered species. Within
the context of conducting a review of the environmental impacts of the project under NEPA,
FHWA may also be required to demonstrate compliance with elements of the Clean Water Act
and the Endangered Species Act. As a result, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA),
the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, and the Department of the Interior’s Fish and Wildlife Service
would have statutory obligations to participate in the proposed project. These agencies, with
potentially conflicting missions (e.g., protecting endangered species or sensitive wetlands versus
building a highway), are then required to work together to review various aspects of FHWA’s
proposed project. Streamlining efforts may be implemented with the intent of expediting the
requirement of having these agencies work together.
Many of the issues leading to a call for streamlining, as well as challenges to implementing such
actions, are summed up in the following excerpt from a report issued by the National Conference
of State Legislatures:
^R^e^gu^lators^often^lac^k^gu^idaⁿ^{ce on}^h^o^w^{to s}^u^cces^s^f^u^l^l^y^integ^r^{ate t}^h^{e co}^m^p^licated
^requ^ire^m^ents^o^f^s^t^ate^an^d^f^e^{deral en}^vironm^eⁿ^tal^la^w^s^aⁿ^{d re}^g^u^l^a^tions^{.... Depen}^d^ing^on^t^h^e
^com^p^le^xⁱ^t^y^of^th^{e i}^s^s^u^{e an}^{d th}^e^priority^gⁱ^v^eⁿ^t^h^{e is}^s^u^{e b}^y^deci^sⁱ^on^m^a^k^e^rs^{, decis}ⁱ^ons^can^be

³^F^H^W^A^{’s S}^t^ea^m^lⁱⁿⁱⁿ^{g an}^d^S^t^ew^a^r^d^s^hⁱ^{p w}^e^b^p^a^{ge “F}^H^W^A^P^r^oj^ect^{s b}^y^Cl^{ass o}^f^A^c^tⁱ^oⁿ^,^{” avai}^l^a^b^l^{e at}
^http:^//w^w^w^.e^nv^ir^onm^eⁿ^t.f^h^w^a^.dot.g^ov^/s^tr^m^l^ng^/^p^r^o^je^c^t^g^r^a^phs^.a^s^p^.

^s^l^o^wⁱⁿ^co^mⁱ^ng^{, t}^h^u^s^del^a^yⁱ^ng^prog^res^s^.^Aⁿ^ot^h^e^{r barri}^e^{r i}^s^t^h^e^f^act^t^h^atⁱⁿ^di^vi^du^al^regu^l^a^t^o^rs
^t^eⁿ^d^t^o^{be e}^x^pert^sⁱⁿ^onl^y^on^{e s}^e^t^{of l}^a^w^s^an^{d re}^gu^l^a^tⁱ^ons^{. T}^hⁱ^s^t^eⁿ^d^s^t^o^creat^{e s}^o^m^e
^resⁱ^s^t^aⁿ^{ce t}^o^prop^os^al^s^t^h^at^coordiⁿ^a^t^e^{or i}ⁿ^t^e^g^r^at^{e t}^h^e^provⁱ^sⁱ^oⁿ^s^of^di^ff^eren^t^l^a^w^s^.
^Reg^u^lato^r^s^teⁿ^d^to^b^e^cau^tio^u^s^ab^o^u^{t in}^teg^r^atⁱⁿ^g^t^h^{e r}^e^q^u^ir^em^en^{ts o}^f^dⁱ^f^f^e^r^eⁿ^t^la^w^s^uⁿ^les^s⁴
^th^e^y^caⁿ^defⁱⁿ^e^{all pos}^sⁱ^{ble re}^g^u^l^a^t^or^y^an^{d tec}^hⁿⁱ^{cal i}^m^pact^s^.
This statement recognizes that barriers to efficient decision making arise not from NEPA alone,
but from the challenges of integrating compliance with a multitude of laws and regulations that
may apply to a given federal action.

NEPA has been interpreted by the courts to be a procedural statute with two primary aims.⁵ First,
it obligates federal agencies to consider every significant aspect of the environmental impact of
an action before proceeding with it. Second, it ensures that the agency will inform the public that
it has indeed considered environmental concerns in its decision-making process. In this capacity,
NEPA has become one of the primary mechanisms through which the public is able to participate
in the federal decision-making process.
As a procedural statute, the courts have ruled that NEPA does not require agencies to elevate
environmental concerns above others. Instead, NEPA requires only that the agency assess the
environmental consequences of an action and its alternatives before proceeding. If the adverse
environmental effects of the proposed action are adequately identified and evaluated, the agency
is not constrained by NEPA from deciding that other benefits outweigh the environmental costs
and moving forward with the action.
NEPA is a declaration of policy with action-forcing provisions, not a regulatory statute
comparable to other environmental laws intended to protect air, water, wetlands, or endangered
species. It establishes the basic framework for integrating environmental considerations into
federal decision making. However, the law itself does not provide many details on how this
process should be accomplished. For example, although NEPA gave CEQ a variety of duties, the
authority to promulgate regulations implementing NEPA’s environmental review requirements ⁶⁷
was not one. That authority was ultimately given to CEQ by executive order in 1977, but it did

⁴^T^h^{e Nat}ⁱ^oⁿ^a^l^Con^f^eren^{ce o}^f^S^t^at^{e L}^e^gi^sl^at^u^r^es,^Eⁿ^vi^roⁿ^m^en^t^,^Eⁿ^e^r^g^y^an^d^T^r^an^sp^o^r^t^a^tⁱ^oⁿ^P^r^o^g^ram^,^“Asses^s^m^en^t^o^f
^R^e^g^u^la^tor^y^a^{nd A}^d^mⁱ^nis^t^r^a^tiv^e^Str^e^am^lining^a^t^Uⁿ^ite^d^Sta^t^e^s^D^e^pa^r^t^m^e^{nt of}^Ene^r^gy^C^l^ea^{nup S}^ite^s^,^”^A^u^g^u^s^t¹⁹⁹^{6. T}^h^is
^r^e^por^{t w}^a^s^a^v^a^ila^ble^online^on^or^a^r^oun^{d N}^o^v^e^m^b^e^r²⁰⁰^4,^but^isⁿ^o^long^e^r^a^v^a^ila^ble^.
⁵^Baltim^ore^{Gas &}^Ele^c^t^ri^c^Co^{. v}^.^Natura^{l Re}^so^urc^e^s^De^fe^nse^Coun^c^{il, Inc}^.^,⁴⁶^{2 U}^.^S.^87,⁹⁷^,¹⁰^{0 (}¹⁹⁸³⁾^.
⁶^A^f^te^r^its^r^e^g^u^la^tions^w^e^r^e^pr^om^ul^g^a^te^{d, f}^our^Uⁿ^ite^d^Sta^t^e^s^Su^pr^e^m^e^C^our^t^de^cⁱ^sⁱ^ons^di^{d de}^te^r^m^ine^tha^t^C^E^Q^’^s
ⁱⁿ^t^e^rp^ret^a^tⁱ^oⁿ^o^f^NE^P^A^{’s req}^uⁱ^re^men^t^{s w}^a^{s o}^w^ed^“su^b^s^t^aⁿ^tⁱ^a^l^d^e^f^e^ren^{ce” b}^y^co^u^r^t^s^.
⁷^Ex^e^c^u^tiv^e^O^r^de^r¹¹⁹⁹¹^,^Re^la^tin^g^{to Pr}^ote^c^tio^{n a}ⁿ^d^En^ha^nc^e^m^eⁿ^t^{of E}ⁿ^vⁱ^ronmeⁿ^t^a^{l Q}^ual^ity^,^si^gn^ed^b^y^P^r^esi^d^en^t
^C^a^r^t^e^r^{, Ma}^y^{24, 19}⁷⁷^{, 4}²^Fe^d^.^Re^g.²⁶⁹⁶⁷^.^T^h^e^fⁱ^na^{l CEQ re}^g^u^la^ti^{ons w}^e^re^ultim^a^t^e^l^y^pro^m^ulg^a^te^{d in 1}⁹⁷⁸^aⁿ^d
^b^eca^m^e^e^f^f^e^ctⁱ^v^{e i}ⁿ¹⁹⁷⁹^(see,⁴³^Fe^{d. Re}^g.⁵⁵⁹⁷^{8, Nov}^e^m^b^e^r^28,¹⁹⁷^8;⁴⁰^C.F.R^.^§^§¹⁵^00-¹⁵^08).^Iⁿ^a^d^d^itio^{n t}^o
^p^r^o^m^u^l^gatⁱⁿ^{g regu}^l^a^tⁱ^oⁿ^s^,^CE^Q^{has p}^r^o^vⁱ^d^ed^s^u^pp^o^r^t^an^{d i}ⁿ^f^o^rm^al^guⁱ^d^an^{ce t}^o^f^e^d^e^ral^agen^ci^{es i}^m^p^l^e^m^en^tⁱⁿ^{g NE}^P^A^’s
^r^e^quir^e^m^e^nts^.^For^e^x^a^m^ple^,^{in 19}^{81, C}^E^Q^is^s^u^e^d^its^“^F^or^ty^Mos^t^A^s^k^e^{d Q}^u^e^s^tions^C^o^nc^e^rⁿⁱ^ng^C^E^Q^’^s^N^E^P^A
^Regu^l^a^tⁱ^oⁿ^s^.^”^T^h^at^an^{d o}^t^h^e^{r CE}^{Q gu}ⁱ^d^an^{ce are avai}^l^a^b^l^{e at}^h^t^t^p^:^/^/^ceq^.^e^h^.^do^e.^go^v/ⁿ^e^p^a^/ⁿ^ep^an^et^.^h^t^m^.

not include authority to enforce those regulations.⁸ A major impetus for CEQ’s regulations was to
reduce the time and paperwork required to prepare an EIS.
The CEQ regulations were intended to be generic in nature. Each federal agency was required to
develop its own NEPA procedures that would be specific to typical classes of actions undertaken ⁹
by that agency. Separately, CEQ regulations directed federal agencies to review their existing
policies, procedures, and regulations to ensure that they were in full compliance with the intent of ¹⁰
NEPA.
Section 102(2)(C) of NEPA requires that all federal decisions include in “every recommendation
or report on proposals for legislation and other major Federal actions significantly affecting the
quality of the human environment, a detailed statement by the responsible official on the ¹¹
environmental impact of the proposed action.” The “detailed statement” is now referred to as an
environmental impact statement (EIS).
Projects for which it is not initially clear whether impacts will be significant require the
preparation of an environmental assessment (EA). If, at any time during the EA preparation, it is
determined that a project’s impacts will be significant, an EIS must be prepared. However, if in
preparing the EA the agency determines that the project will have no significant environmental
impact, a Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI) will be issued by the lead agency. The
FONSI must briefly present the reasons why the project will not have a significant effect on the
environment.
If a project is of a type or in a category known to have no significant environmental impacts, it is
categorically excluded from the requirement to prepare and EA or EIS. Individual agencies are
required to specifically list, in their respective NEPA procedures, those projects that are likely to ¹²
be considered categorical exclusions (CEs). For example, DOT has identified the construction
of bicycle and pedestrian lanes, landscaping, and the installation of traffic signals as actions that ¹³
would generally be classified as categorical exclusions.
Some agency NEPA procedures answer the question of whether or what types of documentation
may be required to demonstrate that a project is categorically excluded, by focusing on whether
the project involves “extraordinary circumstances” that may cause a normally excluded action to

⁸^CE^{Q i}^s^ch^arged^wⁱ^t^h^p^r^o^vⁱ^dⁱⁿ^g^oversi^g^h^t^an^d^guⁱ^d^an^{ce t}^o^agen^ci^{es w}ⁱ^t^h^regard^t^o^E^I^S^p^r^ep^aratⁱ^oⁿ^.^E^P^Aⁱ^s^req^uⁱ^re^d^t^o
^re^vⁱ^ew^a^{nd c}^o^m^m^e^{nt pu}^blic^ly^on^the^eⁿ^vⁱ^ronm^eⁿ^ta^{l im}^pa^c^t^s^of^propos^e^d^f^e^de^ra^{l a}^c^tiv^itie^s^,^inc^l^u^d^ing^thos^e^f^o^{r w}^h^ic^{h a}ⁿ
^E^I^Sⁱ^s^p^r^e^p^ared^.^E^P^Aⁱ^s^al^so^t^h^{e off}ⁱ^ci^al^reci^pⁱ^en^t^o^f^al^l^E^I^S^s^p^r^ep^ar^ed^b^y^fed^e^ral^agen^ci^es.^Ho^w^e^ver,ⁿ^eⁱ^t^h^{er E}^P^A^no^r
^CE^{Q h}^a^{s en}^f^o^rce^m^en^t^au^t^h^o^rⁱ^t^y^wⁱ^t^h^regard^t^o^an^agen^cy^’^s^en^vi^roⁿ^m^en^t^a^l^revi^e^w^req^uⁱ^re^m^eⁿ^t^s.
⁹^{40 C}^.^F.R^.^§¹⁵⁰⁷^.3.
¹⁰^{40 C}^.^F.R^.^§¹⁵⁰⁰^.6.
¹¹^{42 U}^.^S.C^.^§⁴³³²⁽²⁾⁽^C⁾^.
¹²^{40 C}^.^F.R^.^§¹⁵⁰⁷^.3.^Som^e^tim^es^suc^h^a^c^tio^ns^a^r^e^r^e^f^e^r^r^e^{d to a}^s^beⁱⁿ^g^c^a^t^e^g^or^ic^a^l^l^y^e^x^c^l^ude^{d or}^e^x^e^m^{pt f}^r^om^N^E^P^A^.
^Ho^w^e^ver,^NEP^A^doe^s^ap^pl^y^t^o^such^actⁱ^oⁿ^s^;^t^h^ey^{are e}^x^cl^u^d^e^d^on^l^y^f^r^o^m^t^h^{e req}^uⁱ^rem^eⁿ^t^t^o^p^r^ep^are^an^E^A^o^r^E^I^S^.
¹³^{23 C}^.^F.R^.^§⁷⁷^1.¹¹^7.

have a significant environmental effect.¹⁴ An individual agency’s NEPA requirements may also
specify other criteria under which otherwise excluded actions may require documentation to
prove that the CE determination is appropriate.
Under NEPA, an EIS must be prepared for “every recommendation or report on proposals for
legislation and other major federal actions significantly affecting the quality of the human
environment.” Interpretation of each element of this phrase has been the subject of myriad court
decisions and guidance from CEQ. The CEQ regulations, at 40 C.F.R. § 1508.18, specify that the
term “major” in the phrase “major federal action” reinforces but does not have meaning
independent of “significantly.” Therefore, in determining whether and how NEPA will apply to an
action, it is necessary to determine whether an action is in fact a federal one and, if so, if its
environmental impacts will be significant.
“Federal” actions include those that are potentially subject to federal control and responsibility.
Such actions include “projects and programs entirely or partly funded, assisted, conducted, ¹⁵
regulated, or approved by federal agencies.” Specifically, federal agency compliance with NEPA ¹⁶
may be required for actions that require a federal permit or other regulatory decision to proceed.
CEQ regulations require agencies to determine the significance of a project’s impacts on a case-¹⁷
by-case basis, based on its context and intensity. Because degrees of impact must be evaluated,
such an evaluation may be highly subjective. Although court decisions have been rendered
regarding most elements of NEPA implementation, few federal courts have attempted to
specifically define “significance.” Most often, a court will determine whether the evidence for a
given project involved potentially significant environmental effects and then decide whether the
agency’s decision not to prepare an EIS was reasonable under circumstances specific to that ¹⁸
project.
An EIS is a full-disclosure document that must include the following elements:
• Purpose and Need Statement. A brief statement, developed by the agency
responsible for the action, specifying the underlying purpose of a project and the
need to which the agency is responding.
• Alternatives. A description of all reasonable project alternatives to meet the
stated project purpose and need. CEQ has interpreted “reasonable” alternatives to
include those that are practical or feasible from the technical and economic
standpoint and that use common sense, rather than simply desirable from the

¹⁴^{40 C}^.^F.R^.^§¹⁵⁰⁸^.4.
¹⁵^{40 C}^.^F.R^.^§¹⁵⁰⁸^.1⁸⁽^a⁾^.
¹⁶^{40 C}^.^F.R^.^§¹⁵⁰⁸^.1⁸⁽^b)⁽⁴⁾^.^Fur^t^h^e^r^,^the^te^r^m^fe^de^r^a^{l age}^nc^y^is^de^fⁱ^ne^{d a}^s^a^{ll a}^g^eⁿ^cⁱ^e^s^of^the^f^e^de^r^a^{l g}^o^v^e^rⁿ^m^e^{nt, but}
^doe^sⁿ^o^{t m}^e^aⁿ^the^C^o^ng^r^e^s^s^,^the^J^udicⁱ^a^r^y^,^or^the^P^r^e^sⁱ^d^eⁿ^{t (}^{40 C}^.^F.^R^.^§¹⁵^08.¹²⁾^.
¹⁷^{40 C}^.^F.R^.^§¹⁵⁰⁸^.2^7.
¹⁸^Dⁱ^na^{h B}^e^a^r^{, “}^N^E^P^A^a^t^19:^A^P^rⁱ^m^e^r^{on a}ⁿ^‘^O^l^d^’^L^a^w^w^{ith Solu}^tio^ns^{to N}^e^w^P^r^ob^le^m^s^,”^Eⁿ^vi^roⁿ^m^en^t^a^l^L^a^w^R^evi^ew^,
^Fe^br^ua^r^y¹⁹⁸⁹^{, a}^v^a^ila^ble^oⁿ^line^oⁿ^the^“^C^EQ^G^u^idaⁿ^{ce” W}^e^b^p^a^g^e^{at h}^t^t^p^://ceq^.e^h^.^d^o^e.g^o^v^/ⁿ^e^p^a^/^r^eg^s/g^u^id^an^ce.h^t^m^l^.

standpoint of the agency or a potentially affected stakeholder.¹⁹ Consideration of ²⁰
a “no action” alternative is also required.
• Affected Environment. A succinct description of the environment affected by
the alternatives under consideration (e.g., endangered species habitat, wetlands,
historic sites).
• Environmental Consequences. An analysis of the impacts of each alternative on
the affected environment, including a discussion of the probable beneficial and
adverse social, economic, and environmental effects of each alternative. This
section must also include, where applicable, a discussion of the direct, indirect,
and cumulative effects of each alternative and the significance of those effects, a
description of the measures proposed to mitigate adverse impacts, and methods
of compliance with any applicable legal requirements.
Preparation of an EIS is done in two stages, resulting in a draft and final EIS. Once the final EIS
is approved and the agency decides to take action, the lead agency must prepare a public record of
decision (ROD). CEQ regulations specify that the ROD must include a statement of the final
decision, all alternatives considered by the agency in reaching its decision, and whether all
practicable means to avoid or minimize environmental harm from the alternative selected have ²¹
been adopted and, if not, why they were not. Generally, a federal project cannot proceed (e.g.,
final design activities, property acquisition, or project construction) until a ROD for the final EIS ²²
is issued. (For more information about the required elements of an EIS, see CRS Report
RL33152, The National Environmental Policy Act: Background and Implementation, by Linda
Luther.)
The agency responsible for preparing the necessary NEPA documentation is the lead agency. In
the appropriate NEPA documentation (e.g., EIS or EA), the lead agency must demonstrate that
comments were solicited from relevant federal, state, and local agencies (referred to as
“participating” agencies), as well as from the public. Relevant agencies obligated to provide
comments are those with jurisdiction by law or special expertise with respect to any
environmental issue associated with the project. For example, if a project alternative affects a
historic site, the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation may be required to participate in the ²³
NEPA process as a “cooperating agency.” If impacts to wetlands are identified, the Corps may
need to provide comments or issue a permit before a project may proceed.

¹⁹^Couⁿ^c^{il o}ⁿ^Eⁿ^vⁱ^ro^nm^eⁿ^ta^{l Qua}^lity^,^F^o^rt^{y Mo}^st^A^s^ked^Qu^estⁱ^oⁿ^s^C^oⁿ^cernⁱ^ng^CE^{Q’s NE}^P^A^R^e^gu^l^a^tⁱ^oⁿ^s^{, r}^e^s^p^ons^e^t^o
^“^A^lte^rna^tive^s^Outside^the^Ca^pa^bⁱ^l^ity^of^A^pplic^aⁿ^{t or}^J^u^rⁱ^s^d^ic^ti^on^of^A^g^eⁿ^cy^,”^av^a^ila^ble^a^t^http:^//c^e^q^.e^h.d^o^e^.^g^o^v^/^ne^pa^/
^r^e^g^s^/^40/⁴⁰^P1.^h^tm^.
²⁰^{40 C}^.^F.R^.^§¹⁵⁰⁸^.2^5.
²¹^{40 C}^.^F.R^.^§¹⁵⁰⁵^.2.
²²^Fo^r^p^r^o^j^{ects w}^ith^{less th}^aⁿ^sigⁿ^if^ican^{t en}^vⁱ^roⁿ^m^en^{tal im}^p^act^{s, th}^{e p}^r^o^j^{ect can}ⁿ^o^{t p}^r^o^ceed^uⁿ^til^th^{e act}^ioⁿ^{is classif}ⁱ^ed
^{as a CE}^o^r^{a F}^ONS^Iⁱ^s^ap^p^r^o^v^ed^f^o^{r an}^E^A^.
²³⁴⁰^C^.^F^.^R^.^§§¹⁵⁰¹^.6^and¹⁵⁰⁸^.5^.

To integrate the compliance process and avoid duplication of effort, NEPA regulations specify
that, to the fullest extent possible, agencies must prepare the NEPA documentation concurrently ²⁴
with any other environmental requirements. The appropriate NEPA documentation must also
indicate any federal permits, licenses, and other entitlements required to implement the proposed
project. This means that compliance requirements of any additional environmental laws,
regulations, or executive orders must be determined (but not necessarily completed) during the
NEPA process. In this capacity, NEPA functions as an umbrella statute, meaning it is a framework
to coordinate or demonstrate compliance with any studies, reviews, or consultations required by
any other environmental laws. The use of NEPA in this capacity has led to confusion. The need to
comply with another environmental law, such as the Clean Water Act or Endangered Species Act,
may be identified within the framework of the NEPA process, but NEPA itself is not the source of
the obligation. If, hypothetically, the requirement to comply with NEPA were removed,
compliance with each applicable law would still be required.
For additional information about NEPA’s history and requirements, see CRS Report RL33152,
The National Environmental Policy Act: Background and Implementation, by Linda Luther.
Debate regarding the need for streamlining measures originates from assertions that NEPA delays
federal projects. The debate stems from disagreement among stakeholders regarding the degree to
which, if any, the NEPA process itself is to blame for federal project delays. Delays attributed to
the NEPA process generally fall into two broad categories: those related to the time needed to
complete required documentation (primarily EISs) and delays resulting from NEPA-related
litigation.
The research, data collection, analyses, and public participation necessary to prepare NEPA
documentation takes time, in some cases years. The debate begins when stakeholders attempt to
determine the extent to which the preparation of NEPA documentation alone adds to or delays the
time to complete a federal project. Several unique aspects of NEPA make it difficult to determine
the degree to which the NEPA process itself is the source of delays.
First, other than the Department of Energy (DOE), and very recently DOT, federal and state
agencies do not routinely maintain information on the time needed to complete the NEPA process.
Therefore, gathering accurate data specific to the time needed to prepare NEPA documents is
difficult. Also, for some classes of projects, document preparation under NEPA is generally done
concurrently with other stages of a project, such as preliminary project design. If a project
undergoes specification changes, those changes may necessitate changes in NEPA analysis and
documentation. Consequently, the time to complete the NEPA process may be extended.
However, determining if such delays are directly attributed to the NEPA process itself may be
problematic.

²⁴^{40 C}^.^F.R^.^§¹⁵⁰²^.2^5.

Another challenge related to gathering data deals with how one measures the time taken on a
federal project that actually involves the NEPA process. When measuring the length of the NEPA
process for a given project, an agency generally looks at the date of the notice of intent (NOI) to
file an EIS and the date of the ROD. However, these dates do not necessarily reflect the time it
take to prepare NEPA documentation for a given project. A federal project may stop and restart
for any number of reasons that are unrelated to NEPA or any other environmental requirement.
This may be the case particularly for costly or controversial projects. For example, filing an NOI
in 1988 and subsequently issuing the ROD in 1998 does not necessarily mean that it took 10
years to complete the EIS; the time it took to complete the project may have been associated with
funding issues, changes in agency priorities, community opposition to the project, or engineering
requirements, to name a few.
Second, a project having significant impacts on the environment is likely to require compliance
with a number of environmental laws. The use of NEPA as an umbrella statute blurs the
distinction between the time to complete the NEPA process and the time it takes to address other
environmental requirements. The sometimes extensive reviews required under other
environmental laws by agencies such as the Corps, the Fish and Wildlife Service, the Coast
Guard, or EPA, as well as various state regulatory agencies, are often attributed to the NEPA
process. In fact, the NEPA process may be extended as a result of the need to complete a
permitting process or other analysis required under separate statutory authority (e.g., the Clean
Water Act or Endangered Species Act), over which the lead agency may have no authority. One
agency, FHWA, observed that many delayed projects or failed processes can be traced back to a
disintegrated and disconnected approach to meeting NEPA and other requirements. FHWA stated
that experience in administering NEPA has shown that many practitioners do not fully understand
or practice the approach of using the NEPA process as an umbrella for integrating all required ²⁵
studies, reviews, or consultations.
Third, a project with significant impacts may be a large, high-profile, complex project costing
millions of dollars. Depending on the impacts, such projects may generate local controversy and
be opposed by certain stakeholders. Delays of such projects are well-known among agency
officials and interested stakeholders. However, such projects make up a small percentage of all
federal actions. Further, although examples of NEPA-related delays associated with such projects
exist, few data suggest that delays associated with them are widely applicable to all federal
projects subject to NEPA.
Finally, it has been observed that it takes longer to complete necessary NEPA documentation
today than it did in the 1970s. The NEPA process as it is implemented today is not comparable to
the NEPA process soon after the law was enacted. Until November 1978, there were no binding
CEQ regulations outlining EIS, EA, or CE requirements. While an EIS may have been completed
relatively quickly during the 1970s, compared with today, it may not have withstood judicial
review. Further, many agencies did not have their own NEPA procedures until well into the
1980s. Such procedures may make the process take longer today, but they may result in fewer
overall project delays in situations where adherence to the procedures results in a more legally
sound EIS. Also, there were fewer environmental laws and regulations in the 1970s (see reference
to the use of NEPA as an umbrella statute, above), and the public is more involved in the NEPA
process today than in the 1970s.

²⁵^N^o^tic^e^of^P^r^o^pos^e^d^R^u^le^m^a^kⁱ^ng^,⁶⁵^Fe^{d. Re}^g.³³⁹⁶^{5 (}^M^a^y^25,²⁰⁰⁰⁾^.

Critics of NEPA often cite litigation as a significant cause of NEPA-related project delays. Such
critics charge that individuals and groups who disapprove of a federal project will use NEPA as
the basis for litigation to delay or halt that project. Others argue that litigation only results when
an agency does not comply with its own NEPA procedures.
Since 2001, plaintiffs have primarily cited two reasons for filing NEPA-related lawsuits. The first
is that the required NEPA documentation (e.g., an EIS, EA, or FONSI) was inadequate. That may
mean that they charge that, among other things, an EIS or EA did not include sufficient analysis
of all project alternatives, did not consider all “reasonable” project alternatives, or did not
adequately analyze the cumulative or indirect impacts of an action. The second is that an EA was
prepared when an EIS should have been (i.e., a FONSI was issued when impacts were in fact ²⁶
significant).
NEPA litigation began to decline in the mid 1970s, and has remained relatively constant since the
late 1980s. This may be due in part to improved agency compliance after promulgation of CEQ
and agency NEPA procedures, and improved agency expertise at preparing required ²⁷
documentation. For example, in 2005, a total of 118 NEPA-related cases were filed. The
majority of suits were filed against two agencies: the Department of Agriculture, or USDA
(specifically the U.S. Forest Service, with 50 cases filed against it) and the Department of the ²⁸
Interior (26 cases filed).
Although litigation has decreased, agency concern regarding the threat of litigation still has an
affect on the NEPA process, particularly for complex or controversial projects. A project sponsor
may be mindful of previous judicial interpretation when preparing NEPA documentation in an
attempt to prepare a “litigation-proof” EIS. Stakeholder opinions vary on this aspect of NEPA
implementation. Some look at it positively, asserting that the fear of a lawsuit makes agencies
more likely to adhere to NEPA’s requirements. Others counter that the threat of litigation may
lead to the generation of wasteful documentation and analysis that does not add value to, but can
slow, the decision-making process.
Like issues related to documentation, several unique elements to NEPA have led to litigation
playing a prominent role in the law’s implementation. For example, unlike other environment-
related statutes, NEPA’s requirements apply only to federal agency actions and no individual
agency has enforcement authority over those requirements. The absence of government
enforcement authority is sometimes cited as the reason that litigation has been chosen as an
avenue by individuals and groups that disagree with how an agency meets NEPA’s mandate or
EIS requirements for a given project (e.g., they may charge that an EIS is inadequate or that the
environmental impacts of an action will in fact be significant when an agency claims that they are
not).
Another unique element of NEPA is the role that public participation is intended to play in the
process. In 1997, a CEQ study found that the extent to which the public is involved in the

²⁶^Couⁿ^c^{il o}ⁿ^Eⁿ^vⁱ^ro^nm^eⁿ^ta^{l Q}^u^a^lity^{, “}^{2005 L}^itig^a^tion^Surv^e^y^,”^av^aⁱ^l^a^ble^a^t^htt^p^://c^e^q^.e^h.d^o^e^.^g^o^v^/^ne^pa^/ne^p^aⁿ^e^t^.^h^tm^.
²⁷^Ibid^.
²⁸^Ma^ny^of^the^s^e^s^u^its^r^e^la^te^{to the}^fⁱ^na^liz^a^tion^of^la^nd^aⁿ^d^r^e^s^our^c^e^m^a^na^g^e^m^e^{nt pla}ⁿ^s^a^{nd im}^ple^m^eⁿ^ta^tⁱ^on^pr^o^j^e^c^t^s^on
^f^e^de^r^a^{l la}^nd.

decision-making process has a bearing on the potential for litigation.²⁹ The study found that some
states, citizen groups, and businesses believe that certain EAs are prepared to avoid public
involvement (i.e., because public participation requirements are not specified for EAs). As stated
earlier, disagreement regarding the decision to prepare an EA, rather than an EIS, is the most
common source of conflict and litigation under NEPA.
In recent years, numerous legislative and administrative proposals have been proffered to
streamline compliance with NEPA’s requirements. Those proposals have generally been unique to
the categories of projects they are intended to expedite. However, most streamlining provisions,
particularly legislative proposals, include similar elements. For example, discussed below are ^th^th
elements common to legislative streamlining provisions in laws enacted in the 108, 109, and ^th
110 Congresses (for a discussion of selected laws in which these provisions are included, see the
“Legislation Enacted” section, below). Also discussed below are selected issues associated with
each element.
Most legislative streamlining provisions direct the lead agency to create some form of
coordinated environmental review or compliance process. This process often requires the lead
agency to establish specific administrative procedures for processing permits, license
applications, or environmental reviews under the NEPA process. Often, that coordinated process
must be delineated in a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) between the designated lead
agency and participating agencies for certain classes of projects (e.g., projects that require
preparation of an EIS or EA). Legislation usually delineates required elements of the coordinated
process, the content of the MOU, or both. For example, it may specify certain decision-making
authorities of the lead and participating agencies in the selection and analysis of project
alternatives, and it may specify methods to conduct the environmental review process under
NEPA concurrently with other environmental requirements.
Some legislative proposals have allowed the lead agency to establish such a process only if
requested by a project sponsor or applicant. Others specify that such a process must be
implemented for entire classes of projects undertaken by an agency (e.g., all projects that require
an EIS).
Proponents of a coordinated compliance process argue that it is crafted to address the charge that
the problem of delays with the NEPA process lies in its implementation and that a better
coordinated process could lead to better and faster results. Critics are concerned with the details
of such processes, such as limits on participating agency input or the imposition of strict
deadlines, especially if those deadlines could limit public involvement.

²⁹^Couⁿ^c^{il o}ⁿ^Eⁿ^vⁱ^ro^nm^eⁿ^ta^{l Qua}^lity^,^T^h^{e Na}^tⁱ^oⁿ^a^l^Eⁿ^vi^ron^m^en^t^a^l^P^o^lⁱ^{cy A}^c^t^:^A^S^t^ud^{y of}^It^{s E}^f^f^ectⁱ^ven^{ess A}^f^t^e^r
^T^w^en^t^y^-fⁱ^{ve Y}^e^a^r^s^{, J}^a^nua^r^y¹⁹⁹^7,^{p. 1}⁹^{, a}^v^a^ila^ble^a^t^http^://c^e^q^.e^h^.^d^o^e^.g^ov^/ne^p^a^/^ne^pa^ne^t.^htm^.

CEQ’s regulations currently include numerous provisions intended to reduce delays and ³⁰
paperwork. Following are current requirements in CEQ regulations that are often found in
streamlining proposals (often as part of the coordinated environmental review process, referred to
above):
• Integrate requirements of NEPA with other planning and environmental review
procedures so that all procedures run concurrently, rather than consecutively.
• Integrate the NEPA process at the earliest possible time to avoid delays and
potential conflicts.
• Establish appropriate time and page limits on EISs.
• Emphasize interagency cooperation before the EIS is prepared, rather than
adversary comments on a completed document.
Some streamlining proponents argue that these directives would be more strongly emphasized if
put in to law. Others counter that if similar regulatory provisions are already required of agencies,
there is no guarantee that such statutory provisions would enable or cause agency staff to execute
them more efficiently. Further, they argue that the difficulty in integrating many of these existing
streamlining requirements has more to do with a lack of sufficient staff and resources to perform
those responsibilities than a lack of will to do so.
As discussed previously, the lead agency is the agency responsible for preparing the NEPA
analysis and documentation. Most streamlining legislation establishes in law a specific agency as
the lead agency for certain categories of projects and delineates that agency’s authority in the
environmental compliance process (e.g., DOT is to be the lead agency for surface transportation
projects). Many legislative streamlining provisions authorize the designated lead agency to set
deadlines applicable to participating agency actions and to implement dispute resolution
procedures. Some proposals also specify in law the existing requirement that the lead agency is
authorized to determine an EIS’s “purpose and need” statement and to define project alternatives, ³¹
as required under NEPA.
Establishing a lead agency in legislation specific to individual agency actions may serve to
reassert lead agency authority to participating agencies. However, since this right is already
afforded to federal agencies under current law and regulatory requirements, additional legislation
may not significantly streamline the compliance process.

³⁰^{40 C}^.^F.R^.^§^§¹⁵⁰⁰^.²^aⁿ^{d 1}⁵⁰⁰^.⁴^-¹⁵⁰^0.^5.
³¹^Se^e^c^o^r^r^e^s^pon^de^nc^e^be^tw^e^eⁿ^T^r^ans^por^ta^tⁱ^oⁿ^Se^c^r^e^t^a^r^y^N^o^r^m^aⁿ^Mine^ta^a^{nd C}^E^Q^C^h^aⁱ^r^m^aⁿ^J^a^m^e^s^C^onna^ug^htoⁿ
^regardⁱⁿ^{g exi}^s^tⁱⁿ^{g p}^a^ra^m^e^t^e^{rs o}^f^l^ead^agen^c^y^au^t^h^o^rⁱ^t^y^.^S^ecret^ar^y^Mⁱⁿ^e^t^a^asked^f^o^{r cl}^ari^fⁱ^c^atⁱ^oⁿ^o^f^t^h^{e ro}^l^e^{s o}^f^l^ead^and
^c^oope^r^a^ting^a^g^eⁿ^cⁱ^e^s^w^{ith r}^e^g^a^r^d^{to de}^v^e^lopⁱ^ng^a^hig^h^w^a^y^pr^oje^c^t^’^s^pur^pos^e^aⁿ^{d ne}^e^d^{. W}^h^ileⁿ^o^{t a}^d^d^r^e^s^s^e^{d in the}
^co^rresp^oⁿ^d^eⁿ^ce,^NE^P^A^regu^l^a^tⁱ^oⁿ^s^al^so^sp^eci^fy^t^h^{e sel}^ectⁱ^oⁿ^o^f^reasoⁿ^a^b^l^{e al}^t^e^rn^atⁱ^v^{es t}^o^t^h^{e p}^r^o^posed^actⁱ^oⁿ^,^w^hⁱ^c^h
^m^u^st^al^so^b^e^an^al^y^z^ed^,^{as w}ⁱ^t^hⁱⁿ^t^h^{e au}^t^h^o^rⁱ^t^y^o^f^t^h^{e l}^ead^agen^c^y^.^T^e^xt^o^f^S^ecret^ar^{y M}ⁱⁿ^e^t^a^{’s M}^a^y⁶^,²⁰⁰³^l^e^t^t^e^r,^an^d
^Chaⁱ^rm^aⁿ^Conna^ug^ht^on’s^Ma^y^{12, 20}⁰³^{, re}^s^p^ons^e^a^r^e^a^v^a^ila^ble^a^t^h^ttp://w^w^w^.dot.g^ov^/e^x^e^c^o^rde^r^/132^74/^im^ps^c^h^e^d^/
^le^tte^rs/m^ine^t^a^m^a^y^6.htm^.

One element of the NEPA process that has been identified by some stakeholders as a potential
cause for delay is the added step of obtaining federal agency approval of less complex
documentation, such as categorical exclusion determinations. Some industry stakeholders argue
that some of these federal environmental responsibilities could be delegated to states, which could
speed up the environmental review process by eliminating a significant layer of bureaucracy that
federal approval entails.
This approach is not endorsed by environmental stakeholders who have expressed concern that
the delegation of authority to the states would be the “fox guarding the hen house.” They argue
that states often have vested interests in moving projects forward, and thus their determinations
may not have the level of scrutiny that would be provided with federal oversight.
One potential challenge to state delegation of authority includes a possible lack of staff qualified
to process potentially complex documentation. In May 2003, the General Accounting Office
(GAO, now the Government Accountability Office) reported that some transportation ³²
stakeholders identified state agency staff shortages as a significant cause of project delays. If a
state or local agency does not have sufficient staff to accommodate its needs, the delegation of
additional authority to that agency may serve to slow the compliance process instead of
streamline it. Staff at the state or local level may have difficulty determining all environmental
requirements applicable to their project, which could further slow the process if it takes longer to
ensure that required documentation is complete. It may be a difficult task for a project sponsor to
review and approve the documentation that will ultimately demonstrate that all environmental
requirements have been met. For example, a state may have had a consultant prepare NEPA
documentation for an EIS, but relied on the federal agency to provide oversight for a CE
determination.
One method of expediting the NEPA process includes specifically designating certain projects as
categorical exclusions (CEs). Although this report focuses on legislative efforts to streamline the
NEPA process, agencies may also use the regulatory process to add new CEs to their NEPA
procedures. As discussed previously, individual agencies are required to list specific types of
projects that can be categorically excluded from the requirement to prepare an EIS or EA. ³³
According to CEQ, most agency CEs were approved 10 or more years ago. The regulatory
process usually begins with a data request from an agency’s headquarters to its field offices. The
data gathered and submitted is used to develop the proposal for new and revised CEs. In
developing CEs, most agencies use information from past actions to establish the basis for the “no
significant effect” determination. New agency CEs are proposed through the public rule-making

³²^G^e^ne^r^a^l^A^c^c^ountiⁿ^g^O^f^fⁱ^c^e^,^Hⁱ^ghw^ay^Iⁿ^fr^as^tr^uc^tur^e^:^S^t^ak^e^h^o^l^de^r^s^’^Vie^w^s^on^Tim^e^to^C^o^nd^uc^{t Env}ⁱ^r^onm^eⁿ^t^a^l
^Re^vⁱ^e^w^s^{of H}ⁱ^ghw^ay^Pr^oje^c^t^s^{, G}^A^O^-^03-^534,⁽^W^a^s^hing^ton,^D^.^C^.^,^Ma^y^{23, 20}⁰³⁾^.
³³^S^ee^The^NEPA^Task^F^o^rc^e^Re^po^{rt to t}^h^e^Co^unc^il^on^Envⁱ^r^onmeⁿ^t^a^{l Qu}^ality^{: M}^o^de^rnizin^{g NEP}^A^I^m^ple^m^eⁿ^tati^on^,
^Cha^p^te^{r Fiv}^e^{, “}^C^a^t^e^g^oric^a^l^Ex^c^l^us^ions^,”^Se^p^t^e^m^be^{r 2003}^{, a}^v^a^ila^ble^a^t^htt^p^://c^e^q^.e^h.d^o^e^.^g^o^v^/^ntf^/^re^por^t/inde^x^.^h^t^m^l^{. T}^h^is
^r^e^por^{t a}^l^s^o^inc^l^ude^sⁱⁿ^f^o^r^m^a^{tion a}^bou^{t t}^h^e^d^o^c^u^m^e^nta^{tion r}^e^q^u^ir^e^d^f^o^r^C^E^s^aⁿ^{d t}^h^e^a^g^eⁿ^cy^pr^oc^e^s^s^f^o^r^de^v^e^loping^aⁿ^d
^r^e^vⁱ^sⁱ^ng^C^E^s^;^a^{nd a}^dⁱ^s^c^us^sⁱ^on^of^a^g^eⁿ^cy^c^onc^e^r^ns^r^e^g^a^r^d^ing^e^s^ta^blis^hing^{, r}^e^vⁱ^sⁱ^ng^{, a}ⁿ^{d us}ⁱⁿ^g^C^E^s^.^Iⁿ^r^e^s^pons^e^t^o^t^hos^e
^c^onc^e^r^ns^{, o}ⁿ^Se^pte^m^be^r^19,²⁰^06,^C^E^Q^pr^opos^e^d^aⁿ^d^r^e^que^s^t^e^d^c^o^m^m^e^nts^{on “}^T^he^N^a^tiona^{l E}ⁿ^vⁱ^r^o^nm^eⁿ^ta^{l P}^o^lic^y
^A^c^t^—^G^uⁱ^d^an^{ce o}ⁿ^Cat^e^go^ri^cal^E^x^cl^u^sⁱ^oⁿ^s^,^”⁷¹^Fe^d^.^Re^g^.⁵⁴⁸¹^6.

process; the proposed CEs are published in the Federal Register and open to public comment
before final approval.
In using the legislative process to designate new CEs, Congress may list specific actions
undertaken by an agency that will be presumed to be categorically excluded under NEPA.
Proponents of the legislative designation of CEs argue that the regulatory process of adding CEs
is cumbersome. They further argue that because such projects have no significant environmental
impact, their designation should be done more quickly. Opponents to this approach argue that
legislatively designating actions as CEs circumvents the process and eliminates the potential for
public comment. Further, since CE determinations generally do not provide an opportunity for
public comment, public involvement in such projects will likely be eliminated. Also, opponents
argue that some actions in categories designated by law as CEs may in fact have potentially
significant environmental impacts.
NEPA contains no express provision for judicial review of agency action and hence, not
surprisingly, no deadline on when such petitions for review must be filed. In the large majority of
instances, cases that consider delay in the filing of NEPA litigation have applied laches, an
equitable defense under which a court may dismiss an action after assessing the length and
reasonableness of the filing delay and the resulting prejudice to the defendant. Numerous courts
have said that laches is to be sparingly applied, however, out of concern that NEPA’s
environmental objectives may be frustrated. In other cases, courts have turned to the statute of
limitations used for judicial review under the Administrative Procedure Act. That statute (at 28
U.S.C. § 2401) mandates broadly that civil actions against the United States must be filed within
six years after the right of action first accrues.
One streamlining method involves the establishment of a specific statute of limitations on the
judicial review of final agency actions related to NEPA (e.g., publication of a ROD). Proponents
of such provisions argue that other environmental statutes specify statutes of limitations on the
filing of petitions for review, often 60 to 120 days, and that the six years allowed under 28 U.S.C.
§ 2401 is too long. Opponents of such measures fear that if the statute of limitations is too short,
it will effectively eliminate the mechanism for citizen enforcement of NEPA’s environmental
review requirements.

Recently, there have been numerous legislative and administrative streamlining activities,
including the following:
• The enactment of legislation that alters individual agency NEPA procedures;
• administrative changes in individual agency NEPA procedures; and
• the creation of NEPA “task forces,” established by CEQ and Congress, to study
the NEPA process or expedite implementation of certain types of projects.

Streamlining legislation typically involves actions undertaken by those agencies that tend to file ³⁴
more EISs. For example, of the 542 draft or final EISs filed with EPA in 2006, 477 were filed by
USDA (primarily the U.S. Forest Service), the Department of Defense, or DOD (primarily the
Corps), the Department of Energy (DOE), the Department of the Interior (DOI), and DOT ^th^th^th³⁵
(primarily FHWA). The following legislation, enacted in the 108, 109, and 110 Congress,
includes streamlining provisions for certain types of projects within those agencies:
• Healthy Forests Restoration Act of 2003 (P.L. 108-148): fuel reduction projects
undertaken by the USDA’s Forest Service or the DOI’s Bureau of Land
Management (BLM) on federal land.
• The Safe, Accountable, Flexible, and Efficient Transportation Equity Act of
2005: A Legacy for Users (SAFETEA-LU, P.L. 109-59): construction of or
modifications to surface transportation projects undertaken by FHWA and the
Federal Transit Administration (FTA).
• The Energy Policy Act of 2005 (P.L. 109-58): various energy-development
projects, such as oil and gas leasing and permitting on federal land, and the
designation of energy facility rights-of-way and corridors on federal lands.
Streamlining provisions in this law apply primarily to the actions of DOI, DOE,
and FERC.
• FY2004, FY2005, and FY2006 appropriations laws for DOI and related agencies
(including the USDA’s Forest Service): grazing permit applications.
• The Water Resources and Development Act (P.L. 110-114): various water
resources projects.
The law (Title I) authorizes expedited planning and review procedures for projects to reduce
hazardous levels of biomass fuels on federal lands. Priority is directed to reducing fuels near “at-
risk communities” and in municipal watersheds where forest fire risk from brush, trees, and other
organic “fuel” is deemed high. Title I authorizes a new, alternative NEPA and public involvement
process for actions aimed at reducing biomass fuels on up to 20 million acres of national forests
or BLM lands in the following areas: in or near a wildland-urban interface and municipal water
supply systems, certain endangered species habitats, and areas affected by wind or ice storms or
by insect or disease epidemics that threaten ecological health or natural resources.
In preparing environmental analyses for authorized fuel reduction projects, the law limits the
number of project alternatives that the Forest Service or BLM is required to analyze. Alternatives
required for consideration depend on the type and location of the project under consideration.

³⁴^In^an^y^gi^ven^y^e^ar,^m^o^st^ag^en^ci^es^fⁱ^l^e^f^e^w^e^{r t}^h^an¹⁰^d^r^af^t^o^r^fⁱⁿ^a^l^E^I^S^s^wⁱ^t^h^E^P^A^.
³⁵^T^h^is^r^e^por^{t a}^ddr^e^s^s^e^s^only^eⁿ^a^c^t^e^d^le^gⁱ^s^l^a^tion^.^N^u^m^e^r^ous^bil^l^s^ha^v^e^be^eⁿ^intr^od^uc^e^d^t^h^a^tⁱⁿ^c^l^ude^s^t^r^e^am^lining
^pr^ov^is^io^ns^{. A}^l^s^o^{, f}^o^r^ba^c^k^g^r^ound^inf^o^r^m^a^{tion r}^e^g^a^r^d^ing^le^gⁱ^s^l^a^tiv^e^m^odifⁱ^ca^tions^to^N^E^P^A^{, s}^e^e^C^R^S^R^e^por^t^98-⁴¹^7,
^Stat^utory^M^o^dific^a^tio^{ns of}^the^Ap^plic^ati^oⁿ^{of N}^EPA^,^by^P^a^m^e^la^Ba^ldwⁱ^n.

For its projects, the Forest Service is to develop a new “pre-decisional” review process to
supplant the existing administrative appeals process. Administrative reviews must be exhausted
before litigation is allowed. Lawsuits against agency projects must be filed in the district court for
the area in which the project is proposed. Courts are encouraged to review cases expeditiously.
Preliminary injunctions are limited to 60 days, but can be renewed, and courts are directed to
balance short- and long-term impacts of action and of inaction.
These provisions have been controversial. Proponents assert that biomass fuels are at
unprecedented, unnatural levels that pose serious threats to ecosystems and to humans and their
structures in or near wildlands. They also argue that NEPA analysis, public participation, and
legal and administrative challenges to decisions are delaying actions needed to protect people,
homes, and ecosystems. Opponents argue that short-circuiting the public involvement and review
process can allow timber sales and other environmentally harmful, socially undesirable activities
in the guise of fire protection.
For more information on issues related to the Healthy Forests Restoration Act of 2003, see CRS ^th
Report RS22024, Wildfire Protection in the 108 Congress, by Ross W. Gorte.
The Safe, Accountable, Flexible, and Efficient Transportation Equity Act of 2005: A Legacy for
Users (SAFETEA-LU) authorizes federal surface transportation programs (highway, highway
safety, and transit programs) undertaken by DOT for FY2005-FY2009. With regard to
streamlining NEPA, many of the provisions in SAFETEA-LU codify existing regulatory
requirements, such as designating DOT as the lead agency for surface transportation projects,
specifying the role of the lead and cooperating agencies, and allowing deadlines for decision
making to be set. Following are key provisions of SAFETEA-LU related to streamlining:
• Establishing procedures for “Efficient Environmental Reviews for Project
Decision-Making,” part of which includes the collaborative development, by the
lead and participating agencies, of a project’s statement of purpose and need and
project alternatives, including deadlines on agency comments.
• Establishing a 180-day judicial limitation on claims challenging final agency
actions related to environmental requirements.
• Authorizing transportation funds to help agencies that are required to expedite
the environmental review process.
• Establishing a dispute resolution process that may be initiated by a state governor
or project sponsor when agencies disagree on elements of the environmental
review process.
• Authorizing states to determine whether certain classes of projects may be
processed as categorical exclusions.
• Authorizing state pilot programs to allow participating states to assume certain
federal responsibilities for compliance with environmental laws.
For more information, see CRS Report RL33057, Surface Transportation Reauthorization:
Environmental Issues and Legislative Provisions in SAFETEA-LU (H.R. 3), and CRS Report
RL32024, Background on NEPA Implementation for Highway Projects: Streamlining the Process,
both by Linda Luther.

The environmental streamlining provisions in the Energy Policy Act primarily specify procedures
intended to expedite the completion of federal authorizations for a variety of energy development
projects. Federal authorizations include permits, special use authorizations, and approvals that
may be required under a number of local, state, tribal, or federal requirements (e.g., permitting
requirements under the Clean Air Act or the Clean Water Act). The act also includes several
provisions intended to streamline compliance with environmental reviews under NEPA.
Categories of projects or actions for which NEPA streamlining provisions are provided include
the following:
• Designation of right-of-way corridors. Under § 368, the act requires the
Secretaries of Agriculture, Commerce, Defense, Energy, and the Interior, in
consultation with FERC, states, tribal or local units, affected utility industries,
and other interested persons, to complete, within two years of enactment, any
environmental reviews required for the designation of right-of-way corridors for
oil, gas, and hydrogen pipelines and electricity transmission and distribution
facilities on federal land. The two-year environmental review deadline applies to
corridor designations in Arizona, California, Colorado, Idaho, Montana, Nevada,
New Mexico, Oregon, Utah, Washington, and Wyoming. For other states, the
identification of such corridors is required within four years of enactment (there
is no reference to a deadline for environmental reviews in those states).
• Commercial leases for oil shale and tar sands. Under § 369, the act requires
the Secretary of the Interior to complete a programmatic EIS for a commercial
leasing program for oil shale and tar sands resources on public lands, with an
emphasis on the most “geologically prospective” lands within each of the states
of Colorado, Utah, and Wyoming. This section also establishes an interagency
coordination process that designates DOI as the lead agency to coordinate all
federal authorizations related to oil shale and tar sands projects.
• Rights-of-way on public land for natural gas pipelines and “utility facilities.”
Under § 372, the act requires the Secretary of Energy, in consultation with
Secretaries of the Interior, Agriculture, and Defense to enter into an MOU to
coordinate all applicable federal authorizations and environmental reviews
relating to processing a right-of-way application. Among other provisions, the
MOU must provide for an agreement among the affected federal agencies to
prepare a single environmental review document to be used as the basis for all
federal authorization decisions granting rights-of-way on public land for natural
gas pipelines and “utility facilities” (e.g., facilities or systems for the
transportation or storage of oil, natural gas, synthetic liquid fuel, and gaseous
fuel; or the generation, transmission, and distribution of electric energy).
• Siting interstate electric transmission facilities. Under § 1221, the act amends
the Federal Power Act (16 U.S.C. 824 et seq.) to establish, among other
provisions, a process to coordinate federal authorizations required to site a
transmission or distribution facility and designates the Department of Energy
(DOE) as the lead agency responsible for coordinating all applicable federal
authorizations or related environmental reviews. It also allows DOE to set
deadlines related to federal authorizations and environmental reviews.

Under § 390, the act designates specific actions undertaken by the Secretary of the Interior in
managing public lands or the Secretary of Agriculture in managing National Forest System lands
that will be presumed to be categorical exclusions under NEPA. Those activities, if conducted
pursuant to the Mineral Leasing Act for the exploration or development of oil or gas, are as
follows:
• Individual surface disturbances of less than 5 acres, as long as the total surface
disturbance on the lease is not greater than 150 acres and site-specific analysis in
a document prepared pursuant to NEPA has been completed previously.
• Drilling an oil or gas well at a location or well pad site at which drilling has
occurred previously within five years prior of the date of starting (referred to as
spudding) the well.
• Drilling an oil or gas well within a developed field for which an approved land
use plan or any environmental document prepared pursuant to NEPA analyzed
such drilling as a reasonably foreseeable activity (if that plan or document was
approved within the previous five years).
• Placement of a pipeline in an approved right-of-way corridor (as long as the
corridor was approved within the previous five years).
• Maintenance of a minor activity, other than any construction or major renovation
of a building or facility.
For more information, see CRS Report RL32873, Key Environmental Issues in the Energy Policy
Act of 2005 (P.L. 109-58, H.R. 6), by Brent D. Yacobucci et al.
Other legislation with provisions that may be considered streamlining include various Interior
appropriations bills. The streamlining provisions apply to requirements to prepare a NEPA
analysis for grazing permits administered by the USDA’s Forest Service or the Department of the
Interior’s BLM. The appropriate environmental analysis, conducted either by the Forest Service
or BLM, must be completed before the agency can issue or reissue a grazing permit. A significant
backlog of permit applications and renewals currently exists at both agencies. Since 1999, to
respond to that backlog, a provision has been included each year in the Interior appropriations bill
that gives the agencies the authority to extend grazing permits and leases under their same terms ³⁶
and conditions until completion of NEPA compliance.
The 2003 Consolidated Appropriations Resolution (P.L. 108-7, Division F, Title III, § 328)
directed the Secretary of Agriculture to renew grazing permits for those permittees whose permits
expired prior to or during FY2003. The NEPA analyses were still required to be completed on
those allotments, and the terms and conditions of the renewed grazing permit were required to

³⁶^F^o^{r m}^o^{re i}ⁿ^f^o^rm^atⁱ^oⁿ^ab^ou^t^NE^P^A^an^d^lⁱ^v^est^o^{ck gra}^zⁱⁿ^{g p}^e^rmⁱ^t^s^a^d^mⁱⁿⁱ^st^ered^b^y^t^h^{e F}^o^rest^S^e^rvi^{ce an}^d^BL^M^,^see
^t^h^{e st}^at^em^en^t^o^f^F^r^ed^No^rb^u^r^y^,^Asso^ci^at^{e Dep}^u^t^y^Chⁱ^e^f^,^Natⁱ^oⁿ^a^l^F^o^rest^S^y^st^e^m^,^F^o^rest^S^e^rvi^ce,^b^e^fo^{re t}^h^{e S}^eⁿ^a^t^e
^Subc^om^m^itte^e^{on Pub}^lic^L^a^nds^a^nd^For^e^s^t^s^,^C^o^m^m^itte^e^{on Ene}^r^g^y^a^{nd N}^a^tur^a^l^R^e^s^our^c^e^s^{, Se}^pte^m^be^r^28,²⁰⁰⁵^,
^a^v^a^ila^ble^a^t^http://e^ne^rgy^.^se^na^te^.gov^/pu^b^lic^/ⁱ^nde^x^.^c^f^m^?^Fuse^Ac^tion⁼^He^a^r^ing^s^.He^a^ring^&^H^e^a^r^ing^_^ID⁼¹⁵⁰^{0; a}ⁿ^{d t}^h^e
^s^t^a^t^em^eⁿ^{t of}^Jⁱ^m^H^u^g^h^e^s^{, D}^e^puty^Dⁱ^r^e^c^t^or^B^u^r^e^a^u^of^L^a^{nd Ma}^na^g^e^m^e^{nt, be}^f^o^r^e^the^Se^na^te^Eⁿ^e^r^g^y^{and N}^a^tur^a^l
^R^e^s^our^c^e^s^C^o^m^m^itte^e^,^Subc^om^mⁱ^tte^e^on^Pu^blic^L^a^nds^aⁿ^d^For^e^s^t^s^,^O^v^e^r^sⁱ^g^h^{t of}^G^r^az^ing^on^Pub^lic^L^a^nds^{, J}^u^ne²³^,
²⁰⁰^{4, a}^v^a^ila^ble^a^t^http^://e^ne^rg^y^.^se^na^te^.g^ov^/he^a^r^ing^s^/te^stim^on^y^.^c^f^m^?^id=¹²^37&^w^it_id=¹⁶^35.

remain in effect until the NEPA analyses were completed. The FY2004 Interior Appropriations
Act (P.L. 108-108, § 325) further directed the Secretaries of the Interior and Agriculture to renew
grazing permits that expired or were transferred or waived between FY2004 and FY2008. The act
also directed the Secretaries to report to Congress beginning in November 2004, and every two
years thereafter, the extent to which analysis required under applicable laws is being completed
prior to the expiration of grazing permits. The 2005 Consolidated Appropriations Act (P.L. 108-
447, Division E, Title III, § 339) specified that for FY2005 through FY2007, certain decisions
made by the Secretary of Agriculture to authorize grazing would be categorically excluded under
NEPA, if the following conditions apply:
• the decision continues current grazing management of the allotment;
• monitoring indicates that current grazing management is meeting, or
satisfactorily moving toward, objectives in the land management plan; and
• the decision is consistent with agency policy concerning extraordinary
circumstances.
The total number of allotments that may be categorically excluded under this authority may not
exceed 900.
Section 2044 of the law includes provisions for the “coordination and scheduling of federal, state,
and local actions.” It applies to the construction or modification of certain water supply,
wastewater infrastructure, flood damage reduction, storm damage reduction, ecosystem
restoration, or navigation projects that requires the approval of the Secretary of the Army. The
provision requires the Secretary, upon the request of a “non-Federal interest,” to establish a
schedule for consolidating federal, state, and local agency, and Indian tribe environmental
assessments, project reviews and permit issuance. The Secretary is required, to the extent
practicable, to consolidate hearing and comment periods, procedures for data collection and
report preparation, and the environmental review and permitting processes associated with the
project and related activities. Any costs incurred to carry out this consolidated scheduling process
must be paid by the non-federal interest.
Section 2045 of the law, “Project Streamlining,” calls for the development and implementation of
a “coordinated project review process” for certain water resources projects. The process may
require that all reviews, analyses, opinions, permits, licenses, and approvals required by a federal,
state, or local agency or Indian tribe will be conducted, to the maximum extent practicable,
concurrently and completed within a time period established by the Secretary in cooperation with
“jurisdictional agencies.” As soon as practicable, the Secretary must identify those jurisdictional
agencies, which include all federal, state, and local government agencies and Indian tribes that
may: have jurisdiction over a project; be required by law to conduct or issue a review, analysis, or
opinion for the project; or be required to make a determination on issuing a permit, license, or
approval for the project. Further, any time periods established within the context of the
coordinated review process must be reached in cooperation with the jurisdictional agencies. The
coordinated review process may be incorporated into an MOU between the Secretary and the
jurisdictional agencies. The law also specifies procedures that the Secretary must follow if project
deadlines are missed, and specifies state authority to identify state jurisdictional agencies that
may choose to participate in the coordinated review process.

Like legislative streamlining efforts, administrative streamlining procedures are specific to the
programs undertaken by each agency. Selected examples of agency actions that may be
categorized as streamlining NEPA are discussed below.
In the past five years, the primary mechanism for streamlining the NEPA process for Forest ³⁷
Service activities has been through the expansion of the agency’s list of CEs. For example, since ³⁸

2003, the following projects have been designated as CEs:

• forest fuels reduction activities (up to 1,000 acres treated mechanically or 4,500
acres burned by prescription) and rehabilitation activities for lands (up to 4,200 ³⁹
acres) and infrastructure affected by fires or fire suppression;
• “small” timber harvesting projects (up to 70 acres of live trees or up to 250 acres ⁴⁰
of dead or dying trees or to control insects of disease);
• certain administrative changes to special-use authorizations; and⁴¹
• land management plans, plan amendments, and plan revisions to its list of CEs.⁴²
For more information about these categorical exclusions, see CRS Report RL33792, Federal
Lands Managed by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) and the Forest Service (FS): Issues
for the 110th Congress, by Ross W. Gorte et al. (see particularly: “FS NEPA Application and
Categorical Exclusions.”).
In addition to expanding its list of CEs, the Forest Service modified its application of ⁴³
“extraordinary circumstances” when determining whether a project qualifies as a CE.
Previously, the rule appeared to automatically preclude an action from being categorically
excluded if extraordinary circumstances were present; the new rule gives the responsible official
discretion to determine whether extraordinary circumstances warrant NEPA analysis and public
involvement in otherwise exempt projects.
On February 11, 2004, the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC), DOT, and the U.S.
Coast Guard announced an interagency agreement to provide for the comprehensive and
coordinated review of land and marine safety and security issues at the nation’s liquefied natural

³⁷^For^m^o^r^e^inf^o^r^m^a^{tion, s}^e^e^the^U^S^D^A^For^e^s^t^Se^r^v^ic^e^W^e^{b pa}^g^e^“^C^a^t^e^g^or^ic^a^l^Ex^c^l^us^{ion f}^o^r^D^e^v^e^lopi^ng^{, R}^e^vⁱ^sⁱ^ng^{, or}
^Am^e^nding^L^a^{nd Ma}^na^g^e^m^e^{nt P}^l^aⁿ^s,”^a^v^a^ila^ble^a^t^htt^p^://w^ww^.^f^s.^f^e^d.us/^e^m^c^/^p^laⁿ^_^c^e^/in^de^x^.^htm^l^.
³⁸^T^h^is^lis^{t d}^o^e^s^no^{t i}ⁿ^c^l^ude^C^E^s^r^e^quir^e^d^to^be^de^sⁱ^gⁿ^a^t^e^d^un^de^r^pr^o^vⁱ^sⁱ^ons^of^the^H^e^a^lthy^For^e^s^t^A^c^{t or}^the^Ene^r^g^y
^Polic^y^A^c^{t of}²⁰⁰⁵^.
³⁹⁶⁸^Fe^{d. Re}^g.³³⁸¹³⁽^J^un^{e 5,}²⁰⁰³⁾^.
⁴⁰⁶⁸^Fe^{d. Re}^g.⁴⁴⁵⁹^{8 (}^J^uly^29,²⁰⁰³⁾^.
⁴¹⁶⁹^Fe^{d. Re}^g.⁴⁰⁵⁹^{1 (}^J^uly^6,²⁰⁰⁴⁾^.
⁴²⁷¹^Fe^{d. Re}^g.⁷⁵⁴⁸¹^(Decem^b^e^{r 1}⁵^,²⁰⁰⁶^).
⁴³⁶⁷^Fe^{d. Re}^g.⁵⁴⁶²^{2 (}^A^ug^us^{t 2}³^,²⁰⁰²⁾^.

gas (LNG) import terminals. With a goal of reducing duplication of agency effort and maximizing
the “exchange of relevant information related to the safety and security aspects of LNG facilities
and the related marine concerns,” the agreement:
• designated FERC as the lead agency for environmental reviews under the NEPA
and, as such, specified that it would coordinate its reviews with DOT’s Research
and Special Programs Administration (RSPA) and the Coast Guard;
• delineated the roles and responsibilities of each agency relative to LNG terminals
and LNG tanker operations;
• stipulated that the agencies identify issues early and resolve them quickly;
• specified that the agencies share information and cooperate in the inspection and
operational review of LNG facilities; and
• specified that required NEPA reviews will meet the needs of the participating
agencies, as well as any other cooperating agencies, so that any necessary permits
could be issued concurrently with the FERC authorizations.
The agreement also specified that FERC would notify the other participating agencies as early as
possible of the start of the NEPA review of LNG facilities, including meetings with potential
applicants. FERC would then establish a schedule for the project review process and coordinate
meetings with the participating agencies.
In addition to legislative and administrative activities, NEPA task forces have been established to
either conduct broad reviews of NEPA’s effectiveness or address NEPA implementation at
individual agencies. Three of the task forces are administrative—established within CEQ or by
executive order to improve the NEPA implementation process within the context of the existing
regulations. One task force was created by congressional committee with the intent of reviewing
NEPA’s implementation and determining if amendments to the law are needed.
In 2002, CEQ formed a task force to review NEPA implementation practices and procedures and
to determine opportunities to improve and modernize the process. The CEQ Task Force
interviewed federal agencies; reviewed public comments, literature, and case studies; and spoke
with individuals and representatives from state and local governments, tribes, and interest groups.
In compiling its research, the CEQ Task Force received more than 739 stakeholder comments.
In September 2003, the CEQ Task Force released an in-depth report of its findings and ⁴⁴
recommendations. Actions to implement the Task Force’s recommendations include developing
guidance and several handbooks on the following:
• Integrating the NEPA process with environmental management systems.

⁴⁴^Bo^t^h^t^h^{e CE}^{Q T}^a^{sk F}^o^{rce rep}^o^r^t^“M^o^d^e^rnⁱ^zⁱⁿ^{g NE}^P^A^Im^p^l^e^m^en^t^a^tⁱ^oⁿ^”^and^p^u^b^lⁱ^c^co^m^m^en^t^s^{are av}^ai^l^a^b^l^{e o}ⁿ^t^h^e
^C^E^Q^T^a^sk^For^c^e^w^e^bs^ite^a^t^http://^c^e^q^.e^h.d^o^e^.^g^o^v^/^ntf^/inde^x^.^htm^l^.

• Coordinating NEPA with one or more major environmental consultation and
coordination requirements (e.g., § 404 of the Clean Water Act, § 106 of the
National Historic Preservation Act).
• Establishing CEs and applying them to a proposed action.
• Developing concise and focused EAs with adequate alternatives and mitigation.
• Collaboratively monitoring proposals that rely on the use of CEs and EAs.
• Identifying components of successful collaborative agreements.
• Using programmatic analyses and their appropriate scope, range of issues, and
depth of analysis.
• Training for interested and affected parties (e.g. decision makers, tribes,
nongovernment organizations, permit applicants, state and local governments,
and the public).
Interagency workgroups have been established to develop the handbooks and guidance. To date,
several handbooks and guidance addressing the recommendation listed above have been ⁴⁵
produced.
On May 18, 2001, the President issued Executive Order 13212, Actions To Expedite Energy-
Related Projects. Specifically, agencies were directed to expedite their review of permits or “take
other actions as necessary to accelerate the completion of projects, while maintaining safety,
public health, and environmental protections.” The agencies were directed to take necessary
actions to the extent permitted by law and regulation.
To help expedite energy-related projects, the executive order established an Interagency Task
Force, housed within the Department of Energy (for administrative purposes) and chaired by the ⁴⁶
chairman of CEQ. The task force includes the following members: the Secretaries of
Agriculture, Commerce, Defense, Education, Energy, Housing and Urban Development, Health
and Human Services, the Interior, Labor, State, the Treasury, Transportation, and Veterans Affairs;
the Attorney General; the EPA Administrator; the Director of Central Intelligence; the
Administrator of General Services; the Director of the Office of Management and Budget; the
Chairman of the Council of Economic Advisers; the Assistant to the President for Domestic
Policy; the Assistant to the President for Economic Policy; and such other heads of agencies as
the CEQ Chairman may designate.
The task force was directed to monitor and assist federal agencies’ efforts to expedite their permit
review process or take other necessary actions to accelerate completion of energy-related projects.
It was also charged with helping agencies create mechanisms to coordinate federal, state, tribal,
and local permitting in geographic areas where increased permitting activity is expected.

⁴⁵^H^a^ndb^ook^s^aⁿ^{d g}^u^idaⁿ^c^e^c^o^m^p^le^te^{d to}^da^te^{, a}^s^w^e^{ll inf}^o^rm^a^{tion a}^bout^ong^oⁱ^ng^a^c^tiv^itie^s^{to im}^ple^m^{ent t}^h^e^CEQ^T^a^s^k
^F^o^{rce reco}^mmen^d^a^tⁱ^oⁿ^s^,^{are avai}^l^a^b^l^{e at}^h^t^t^p^:^/^/^ceq^.^e^h^.^do^e.^go^v/ⁿ^t^f^/ⁱ^m^p^l^e^m^en^t^a^tⁱ^oⁿ^.^h^t^m^l^.
⁴⁶^Se^e^the^Ene^r^g^y^Ta^sk^Forc^e^w^e^bsi^t^e^a^t^htt^p^://w^ww^.^e^tf^.e^ne^r^g^y^.^g^o^v^/^{. T}^h^e^Ene^r^gy^T^a^s^k^Forc^e^w^a^{s c}^h^a^r^t^e^re^{d thro}^ug^h
^J^a^nua^r^y^{20, 20}⁰⁵^.

The task force developed several MOUs for certain types of energy-related projects that
incorporate common streamlining elements. For example, in May 2004, an MOU for the
Coordination of Environmental Reviews for Pipeline Repair Projects was agreed to by CEQ,
DOT, EPA, FERC, the DOE, DOI, the Department of Commerce, the Department of Defense,
USDA, and the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation.
In September 2002, Executive Order 13274, Environmental Stewardship and Transportation
Infrastructure Project Reviews, directed federal agencies to expedite environmental reviews for
transportation projects that DOT deemed a “high-priority.” Among the criteria for project
selection are whether the projects are of national or regional significance and whether they may
be delayed by lack of federal interagency coordination. As required by the order, an Interagency
Transportation Infrastructure Streamlining Task Force, chaired by the Secretary of Transportation,
is to monitor work on expedited projects, review the list of suggested projects, and identify and ⁴⁷
promote policies that aid in streamlining. The task force also includes members from federal
agencies likely to be involved in environmental project reviews. The task force has chosen a total
of 19 highway, transit, and airport projects for expedited review. A FONSI or ROD has been
issued for 12 of those projects. On August 23, 2006, DOT sent letters to the Task Force Member
Agencies announcing its intention to designate up to seven new priority projects under Executive
Order 13274.
In April 2005, House Resources Committee Chair Richard Pombo announced the formation of a
Task Force on Improving the National Environmental Policy Act. The Task Force, chaired by
Representative Cathy McMorris, was charged with reviewing and making recommendations on
potential changes to NEPA. It held six hearings in various regions of the United States and two in
Washington, DC, to hear interested stakeholders’ experiences with the NEPA process.
On December 21, 2005, the Task Force released a draft report with its findings and
recommendations for “improving and updating” NEPA. Those recommendations include
amending NEPA itself, directing CEQ to promulgate certain regulations, and directing CEQ to
conduct studies into certain elements of NEPA’s implementation. The final report was issued on
July 31, 2006. Table A-1 (in the Appendix, below) summarizes the individual recommendations
within each group and provides comments on how those recommendations compare to existing
requirements and on selected issues associated with those recommendations.
The Task Force’s charter ended at the beginning of the 110^th Congress.

The process of complying with and documenting compliance with all environmental statutes,
regulations, executive orders, and court decisions potentially applicable to a federal project is

⁴⁷^Inf^o^rm^a^{tion a}^bou^{t Ex}^e^c^u^tiv^e^Ord^e^{r 132}⁷⁴^aⁿ^d^the^traⁿ^spor^ta^tio^{n st}^re^a^m^lining^ta^sk^f^o^rc^e^{is a}^v^a^ila^ble^a^t
^http:^//www^.f^h^w^a^.^dot.g^ov^/ste^w^a^rdshipe^o^/ⁱ^nde^x^.^h^t^m^.

complicated. Even those projects with no or minor environmental impacts must demonstrate that
potential impacts to certain types of resources (i.e., public parkland, historic sites, wetlands,
threatened or endangered species and their habitat, or property in minority neighborhoods) have
been considered and that compliance with applicable requirements is documented. The perception
that compliance with environmental requirements results in extensive delays and additional costs
to the successful delivery of federal projects can be magnified when compliance with multiple
environmental laws and regulations is required (as would likely be the case with large, complex
federal projects).
CEQ provides oversight and guidance to federal agencies, but it does not enforce its regulations.
The CEQ regulations were meant to be generic in nature, with individual agencies formulating
procedures applicable to their own projects. This approach was taken due to the very different
nature of projects and environmental impacts of the various federal agencies. Due to the nature of ⁴⁸
NEPA implementation, determining the time it takes to prepare NEPA documentation, assessing
the nature of delays related to NEPA, and finding remedies to those delays may be more
appropriately accomplished agency by agency.
Streamlining proposals have generated a great deal of controversy among interested stakeholders
(agency representatives, industry groups, environmental organizations, and others). Most
stakeholders agree that the process for complying with environmental requirements applicable to
complex federal projects could be implemented more efficiently. However, there is disagreement
on exactly how streamlining best can be or should be accomplished. Stakeholders, such as
industry representatives who would like to see their projects implemented more quickly, often
feel that the authority of lead agencies must be strengthened to reduce delays caused by potential
disagreements among agencies and that hard deadlines must be set and enforced. Environmental
groups are concerned that by speeding up the compliance process and reducing emphasis on
concerns of “non-lead” agencies, streamlining will have the result of weakening environmental
protections. This debate is likely to continue if additional streamlining methods are proposed by
agencies implementing their own NEPA procedures. The degree to which additional streamlining ^th
provisions will be included in legislation enacted by the 110 Congress is unclear.

Listed by federal agency, the following websites and CRS products provide additional
information (available as of December 6, 2007) regarding environmental compliance issues and
agency streamlining activities.
USDA Forest Service NEPA Web page http://www.fs.fed.us/emc/nepa/.
CRS Report RL33792, Federal Lands Managed by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) and
the Forest Service (FS): Issues for the 110th Congress, by Ross W. Gorte et al.

⁴⁸^Inc^l^u^d^ing^c^o^nd^uc^ting^ne^c^e^ssa^r^y^r^e^se^a^r^c^h^{, da}^ta^c^o^lle^c^tion,^aⁿ^a^l^y^s^e^s^,^a^nd^othe^{r a}^c^tiv^itie^s.

Department of Energy’s Office of NEPA Compliance and Policy Web page
http://www.eh.doe.gov/ nepa/.
CRS Report RL32873, Key Environmental Issues in the Energy Policy Act of 2005 (P.L. 109-58,
H.R. 6), by Brent D. Yacobucci et al.
Department of the Interior, Office of Environmental Policy and Compliance, Natural Resources
Management Team (NEPA Information), Web page http://www.doi.gov/oepc/nrm.html.
CRS Report RL33792, Federal Lands Managed by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) and
the Forest Service (FS): Issues for the 110th Congress, by Ross W. Gorte et al.
CRS Report RL32244, Grazing Regulations: Changes by the Bureau of Land Management, by
Carol Hardy Vincent.
CRS Report RL32315, Oil and Gas Exploration and Development on Public Lands, by Marc
Humphries.
FHWA’s “NEPA Project Development” Web page http://www.environment.fhwa.dot.gov/projdev/
index.asp.
FHWA’s “Relevant SAFETEA-LU Provisions” Web page http://www.environment.fhwa.dot.gov/
inte g/ relate d.asp.
CRS Report RL33057, Surface Transportation Reauthorization: Environmental Issues and
Legislative Provisions in SAFETEA-LU (H.R. 3), by Linda Luther.

Table A-1. The House Resources Committee NEPA Task Force Recommendations To Update NEPA
^Summary^Comments
^{Recommendation}^Gro^{up 1—}^Addressing^{delays in the pro}^cess
^{1.1: Amend N}^{EPA to cha}^{nge “ma}^{jor federal action” to “significant federal action”;}^{The Task Force asserts}^{that t}^he^{undefined te}^{rm “major” leads to inconsistent}
^{amend 4}⁰^{C.F.R. 1508.8 to re}^{flect this cha}^{nge (this reg}^{ulatory citation is like}^{ly listed}^{application of the re}^quireme^{nt to}^pre^{pare a}ⁿ^E^{IS. As it is cu}^rren^{tly written, NEPA}
^{incorrectly in the}^{report; “major}^{federal action” is defined under}⁴⁰^{C.F.R. 1508.18).}^requires^the^pre^{paration of a det}^{ailed statement of environme}^{ntal impacts for all}
^{“major federal actions significantly affecting t}^{he q}^{uality of the}^hum^{an environ}^ment.”
^{CEQ reg}^{ulations (40 C.F.R. § 150}^{8.18) define a “}^{major federal action,” in part, as}
^{“actions with effects}^{that ma}^{y be}^{major and which are}^{potentially subject to Federal}
^{control and respon}^{sibility. Major}^reinforces^{but does}^{not have a}^m^{eaning indepe}^ndent
^{of significantly.” Under cur}^rent^re^{gulations, the word “major” does not refer}^{to the}
^{size or scope of the action, b}^{ut t}^{he significance of t}^{he action’s imp}^{acts. In th}^{e 1}⁹⁷^0s,
^{the term “}^{major federal action” was litigated extensively and is n}^{ow fairly well-settle}^d
ⁱ^{ki/CRS-RL33267}^{to be a one-step}^{process. It}^{is likely that new t}^{erminology would also be litigated}^.
^g/w^{CEQ has}^recomme^{nded that det}^{ail regarding what constitutes a}^{major federal action}
^s^.or^{significantly affecting t}^{he environ}^{ment s}^{hould be s}^{pecified in indivi}^{dual agency N}^EPA^{procedures. Howeve}^{r, most agen}^{cies have not done so.}

^le^ak
^://wiki
^h^ttp

^{Summary Comments}
^{1.2: Require C}^{EQ to p}^romulgate^{regulations that would re}^quire^EI^{Ss be completed}^{There is cu}^rrently^{no specific tim}^{e frame for}^{the com}^{pletion of NE}^{PA documentation.}
^{within 18}^months^and^{EAs within}^{nine mont}^{hs; an}^{y analyses}^{not concluded within that}^{CEQ reg}^{ulations (40 C.F.R. § 150}^{1.8) specify}^both^req^uirements^an^{d recommendations}
^{time frame will be considered completed. Exce}^{ptions may}^{be mad}^{e by CE}^{Q for}^not^{with regard to time limits. In part}^{, those regulations state t}^{hat CE}^{Q has “decided that}
^{more than}^{six mont}^{hs for}^{EISs or}^{three mo}^nths^{for EAs.}^prescri^{bed unive}^{rsal time limits for the entire}^NEPA^{process a}^{re t}^{oo inflexible, Federal}
^{Amend N}^{EPA to add a policy expressing t}^he^{need for timely com}^{pletion of NEPA}^{agencies are e}^{ncouraged to set ti}^{me limits appropriate to individual actions.” The}^{regulations furt}^her^{specify t}^{hat ti}^{me limits shall be set if req}^uested^{by an}^ap^plicant,
^documents.^{provided that the limits are consi}^{stent with t}^{he p}^u^r^{poses of N}^EPA^{and other es}^sential
^{considerations of national policy.}^{Further, t}^{he reg}^{ulations specify t}^{hat whe}^{n setting}
^{time limits, the agency may consi}^{der suc}^{h factors as}^the^{potential harm for t}^he
^{environment; t}^{he size of the}^pro^{posed action; the degree of}^pu^{blic need for t}^{he action,}
^{including conseq}^uence^{s of delay; the degree to w}^{hich releva}^{nt info}^{rmation is known}
^{and if not known}^{the time}^req^uir^{ed for obtaining it; and other tim}^{e limits imposed on}
^{the agenc}^{y by}^{law, regulations, or executive order.}
^{One of t}^{he factors t}^{hat influ}^ence^{the timing of an}^{EIS or}^{EA is the t}^{ime it takes to}
^prepa^{re analyses}^req^{uired u}^nder^{separate stat}^{utory a}^{uthority. For example, to}
^{complete an E}^{IS, a lead agency m}^{ay be re}^quired^{have a}^{nalyses by}^t^{he Depart}^{ment of}
^{the In}^{terior’s U.S. F}^{ish and Wildl}ⁱ^{fe Service (FWS) under certain}^p^{rovisions of the}
ⁱ^{ki/CRS-RL33267}^Endange^{red Species Act, or from}^{the U.S. Army Corps of}^Enginee^{rs u}^{nder certain}
^g/w^{provisions of the Clean Water}^A^{ct. The report does}^{not address}^whethe^{r additional}
^s^.or^{funding will be p}^{rovided to suppo}^{rt agencies re}^{quired to}^{provide expedited analysis for}^{given federal actions.}
^le^ak
^{1.3: Require C}^{EQ to p}^romulgate^{regulations that would “create}^un^{ambiguous c}^riteria”^Curre^{ntly, individual agencies are responsible}^{for developing criter}^{ia to determine}
^://wiki^{to differentiate betwee}^{n CEs,}^EA^{s, and EISs. The criteria s}^{hould focus on t}^he^whethe^{r a p}^{roposed action will require a C}^{E, EA, or EIS. Criteria t}^{hat would be}
^h^ttp^{“significance” of an action, consis}^{tent with e}^{xisting regulation and}^{case law.}^{applicable to all types of federal a}^{ctions, undertaken}^{by all federal a}^{gencies, may be}^{difficult. For example, the Depart}^{ment of th}^{e Int}^{erior would likely}^{need to use differe}^nt
^{Amend N}^{EPA to include a policy statement t}^{hat the}^type^{of NEPA}^{documentation}^{criteria to determine whet}^{her a}ⁿ^{oil and gas exploration project h}^{as significant}
^prepa^{red for a given}^{federal action will be based on t}^{he en}^vironme^{ntal impacts of that}^{environmental impa}^{cts, compare}^{d with the criteria}^{used by}^{the D}^epartme^{nt of Housing}
^{action, not on an agenc}^{y’s effort t}^o^{reduce the}^{potential for litigati}^{on (e.g., producing}^{and Urba}^{n Development in}^deter^{mining the e}^nvironme^{ntal impact}^{s of a federal housing}
^{an EIS w}^{hen a}ⁿ^{EA is ap}^propriate^).^project.
^{1.4: Amend N}^{EPA to codify CEQ}^{regulations (40 C.F.R. § 1502.9(c}^{)(1)(i) and (i}ⁱ⁾⁾^{The cited regulations state that}^a^sup^{plemental EIS s}^{hall be p}^repa^re^{d if the agency}
^{regarding req}^uireme^{nts for}^pre^pa^{ring su}^ppleme^{ntal EISs.}^{makes su}^{bstantial cha}^{nges in t}^he^{proposed action that a}^{re relevan}^t^{to environmental}
^concerns,^or^{if t}^{here ar}^{e significant new}^circumsta^{nces or}^informa^{tion relevant to}^{environmental con}^cern^{s and}^bear^{ing on the}^{proposed action or its}^{impacts. The Task}
^{Force recommendations ap}^{pear t}^o^{require t}^{hat bot}^{h, instead of either, criteria be}^met
^{to require}^pre^{paration of a s}^u^p^{plemental EIS.}
^{Specifically excluded from the re}^c^{ommended statutory ame}^ndment^{is 40 C.F.R. §}
¹⁵⁰^{2.9(c)(2), which sta}^{tes that}^ag^{encies “may also pre}^pare^su^pple^{ments w}^{hen t}^he
^{agency determin}^{es that}^the^pu^rp^{oses of the Act will be f}^urthe^red^{by doing so.” The}
^{recommendations do not ap}^pear^{to remove this reg}^{ulatory req}^uir^ement.

^{Summary Comments}
^{Recommendation}^Gro^{up 2—}^Enhan^cing^{public p}^articipatioⁿ
^{2.1: Require C}^{EQ to p}^romulgate^{regulations that would re}^{quire ag}^{encies to evaluate}^{There are c}^u^r^rently^{no provisions in NEPA or t}^{he C}^{EQ reg}^{ulations to put more}
^{comments ba}^{sed on “the}^impact^{of the entity s}^u^b^{mitting them.” A}^{gencies would be}^{weight on comments}^{received b}^y^{one group}^{or agency}^{over anot}^h^{er. CEQ reg}^ulations
^{directed to develop a scoring mechanism “con}^{sistent with t}^{heir mi}^ssion.”^{(40 C.F.R. § 1503) spe}^{cify re}^quire^{ments for in}^{viting and res}^ponding^{to comments on}
^{the draft}^{EIS. Any fede}^{ral agency}^{that has j}^{urisdiction by law or sp}^{ecial expertise with}^{respect to a}^{ny e}^{nvironmental im}^{pact involved in the action or w}^{hich is aut}^{horized to}
^{develop and enforce e}^nvironmeⁿ^{tal standards must}^{comment. The}^{lead agency is also}
^{required to re}^que^{st comment}^{s fr}^{om approp}^{riate state, local, and t}^{ribal agencies; the}
^{public, particularly t}^{hose pe}^rsons^{or organizations who may be int}^{erested in or affe}^cted
^{by the}^{action; any age}^{ncy t}^{hat has}^req^{uested that it r}^{eceive EISs o}ⁿ^{similar actions; and}
^{the ap}^{plicant (if there}^{is one). The regulations specify}^{that t}^{he lead agency}^{has a dut}^{y to}
^{assess and con}^{sider comments a}ⁿ^d^{respond to the}^{m. However, th}^{e agency is}^not
^{necessarily re}^{quired to cha}^{nge its}^{decision based on comments}^rec^eived.
^{In the}^nar^{rative portion of th}^{e Task Force report, it is ex}^{plained th}^{at the inte}^{nt of this}
^{recommendation is to assign a va}^{lue to comments f}^{rom stakeholders most directly}
^{affected by}^{a partic}^{ular action. If}^{enacted, any mec}^hanism^{used to}^{“score” comments or}
ⁱ^{ki/CRS-RL33267}^{determine which}^{stakeholder are}^{most directly affected by}^{an acti}^{on would likely be}^{the su}^{bject of litigation. F}^{or exam}^{ple, it may be difficult to assign a}^{value to the}
^g/w^follow^{ing parties affected}^{by a}^{highway const}^ruction^{project: prope}^{rty owners}^whose
^s^.or^{land must b}^e^boug^{ht to begin}^con^{struction, near}^{by r}^{esidents affe}^ct^{ed by increa}^sed
^le^ak^{noise, or highway use}^{rs ex}^pected^{to benefit f}^{rom improved traf}^fic^flow.
^://wiki^{2.2: Amend N}^{EPA to codify CEQ}^{’s provision that EISs}^{normally be}¹⁵^{0 page}^{s and}^no^{more than}³⁰⁰^{pages for com}^{plex projects.}^{This proposed amendme}^{nt is c}^u^r^{rently in th}^{e CEQ}^{regulations at}^{40 C.F.R. § 1502.7, as}^{noted in the task}^{force re}^comme^ndation.
^h^ttp^{Recommendation}^Gro^{up 3—}^Bet^{ter involvem}^{ent for state,}^{local, and tribal stakeholder}^s
^{3.1: Require C}^{EQ to p}^romulgate^{regulations that would allow state environme}^ntal^{CEQ reg}^{ulations (40 C.F.R. § 150}^{6.2) specify}^procedu^{res to eliminate duplication with}
^{review req}^uirement^{s, which ar}^{e f}^{unctionally equivalent to}^{NEPA’s, to satisfy NEPA}^{state and local procedures. Amo}^{ng other}^req^uirement^{s, the reg}^{ulations specify that}
^requirem^ents.^{“Where State laws or local ordinances}^{have [E}^{IS] req}^uireme^{nts in}^additi^{on to but not}
^{in conflict with those in}^{NEPA, fe}^{deral agencies shall cooperate in}^{fulfilling these}
^requirem^{ents as}^{well as those of}^{federal laws so that one docume}^{nt will comply with all}
^{applicable laws.” The CEQ r}^egula^{tions are silent on tribal N}^{EPA pr}^{ocedures. The}
^{recommendations also do not address them.}

^{Summary Comments}
^{Recommendation}^Gro^{up 4—}^{Addressing litigation issues}
^{4.1: Amend N}^{EPA to create a}^{policy statement r}^{egarding litigation}^{that would}^{What constitutes}^{best available in}^{formation and science}^{for a given}^{action would likely}
^{recognize the role of litigati}^{on as an enfor}^cement^{tool, but point out that it s}^{hould be}^{differ from p}^{roject to project. There are c}^urre^{ntly no definitions f}^{or such}^{terms in}
^{used only in limited cases where}^there^{has be}^{en a}^{clear demonstra}^{tion that an age}^ncy^{CEQ reg}^{ulations or from existing}^{case law, and thu}^{s they}^{would lik}^{ely be litigated if}
^{made a decision without using t}^h^e^{best available information and s}^{cience; an aggrieved}^implemented.
^{party was i}^{nvolved througho}^{ut th}^{e NEPA}^{process in order}^{to have}^{standing to sue;}^{CEQ reg}^{ulations also specify p}^ubl^{ic involvement criteria for action}^{s req}^{uiring an}^{EIS (4}⁰
^{and that a}¹⁸^{0-day statute of}^limi^{tations be established.}^C.F.R^{. § 1506.6) and}^req^{uire agen}^{cies to involve environmental age}^{ncies, applicants, and}
^{Require CEQ}^{to prom}^{ulgate regu}^{lations that would clarify how the}^{policy declaration}^{the p}^ublic,^{to the extent practicable}^{, in the pr}^{eparation of a}ⁿ^{EA (}⁴⁰^C.F.R^{. § 1501.4(b)).}
^{would be implemented.}^{There are}^{no p}^{ublic involvement}^{criteria specified for CEs. If}^{a par}^t^y^{to a citizen suit}
^{must demonst}^{rate that}^{it was inv}^{olved throughout t}^{he N}^{EPA proc}^{ess, agencies may}^be
^{required to develop s}^{pecific pu}^{blic involvement criteria for}^{EAs a}ⁿ^d^CEs.
^Neither^{NEPA nor}^{the C}^{EQ reg}^u^{lations specify criteria regarding s}^{tanding or specify}^a
^{statute of limitation on citizen suits. Decisions regarding standing a}^{re generally made}^by
^{the courts}^{based on}^constitution^{al or judicia}^{l grounds; with regard}^{to a time limits on}
^{legal actions, courts have tu}^rned^{to the statute of}^{limitations used for judicial review}
^{under t}^{he Administrative Proced}^{ure Act (}^{28 U.S.C. § 2401), whic}^{h mandates}^broadly
ⁱ^{ki/CRS-RL33267}^{that civil actions against the Unite}^{d States must b}^e^{filed within six y}^{ears after t}^he^right
^g/w^{of action first accr}^ues.
^s^.or^{4.2: Amend N}^{EPA to req}^{uire CE}^{Q to provide litigati}^{on guidance t}^o^{agencies; req}^uire^{CEQ historically performed t}^{his f}^{unction and does so c}^urre^{ntly, as resources}^allow.
^le^ak^{CEQ to become a}^{clearinghouse}^{for monitoring and analyzing the}^{effects of cou}^rt
^decisions.
^://wiki^{Recommendation}^Gro^{up 5—}^{Clarifying alternatives analys}^is
^h^ttp
^{5.1: Amend N}^{EPA to req}^{uire anal}^{ysis of only “reasonable alternativ}^es.”^Curre^{nt CEQ}^{regulations (4}^{0 C.F.R. § 1502.14) s}^{pecify t}^{hat all “reasonable}
^{Require CEQ}^{to prom}^{ulgate regu}^{lations that would specify that}^“r^easonable^{alternatives” to a proposed action be}^{considered. CEQ guidance}^interp^{rets rea}^sonable^{alternatives to include “those t}^h^a^t^{are pra}^{ctical or feasible from th}^{e technical and}
^{alternatives” req}^{uired to be a}^{nalyzed should include only those tha}^{t are economically}^{economic standpoint and}^{using c}^{ommon sense, rat}^{her t}^han^{simply desirable from the}
^{and tech}^{nically feasible (as sup}^{ported by fea}^{sibility and engineering}^studies).^{standpoint of the}^ap^plicant.”^a
^{With regard to the}^{proposed reg}^{ulatory req}^uirement^{regarding fe}^{asibility and}
^{engineering st}^{udies, it is unclear}^whethe^{r the}^pre^{paration of s}^uch^{studies would be an}
^additi^{onal requireme}^{nt u}^{nder N}^E^PA.
^{In evaluating a}^{nd selecting its final}^{alternative, NEPA does not re}^qu^{ire the agen}^{cy to}
^{select the least en}^{vironmentally h}^{armful alternative (e.g., NEPA would not req}^{uire an}
^{agency to select a more}^{costly pr}^{oject alternative even tho}^{ugh it h}^{as less significant}
^{environmental impa}^{cts compa}^{red to another).}

^{Summary Comments}
^{5.2: Amend N}^{EPA to specify}^that^{alternative analysis mu}^{st include}^{a consideration of}^{The task force}^{report a}^ppea^{rs to}^interpret^{the e}^{xisting reg}^{ulations as req}^uiring
^{the environ}^{mental impacts}^{of the}^{“no action alternative” and}^req^{uire an age}^{ncy to}^{agencies to only “list” the no acti}^{on alternative in an}^{EIS, with no c}^orresponding
^{reject this alternative “if, on bala}^{nce, the impa}^{cts of not}^undertaki^{ng a p}^{roject or}^{analysis. However, CEQ reg}^{ulations (40 C.F.R. § 1502.1}^{4) and C}^E^Q^guidance^do
^{decision would outweigh the imp}^{acts of exec}^{uting t}^{he p}^{roject or decision.”}^{require a}^{nalysis of a “no action”}^{or “no chang}^{e” alternative. CEQ}^{guidance spe}^cifies
^{that suc}^{h a}^{nalysis is req}^{uired to demonstrate t}^{he en}^{vironmental im}^{pacts of contin}^uing
^{with the}^prese^{nt cours}^{e of action}^{or taking no action. Curre}^{ntly, agencies may}^{use th}^e
^{no action alternative analysis as a}^{baseline against w}^{hich th}^{ey ca}ⁿ^{measure t}^{he impa}^cts
^{of other alternatives}^under^{consideration.}
^{This recommendation ap}^{pears to}^{add a substa}^{ntive element to}^NE^PA
^{implementation—it species criter}^{ia under w}^{hich an}^{alternative m}^u^s^t^{be rejected. As}
^{NEPA has}^bee^{n inter}^{preted, it is a tool to assist an agency in th}^{e decision-making}
^{process, b}^{ut it does not dictate the outcome of t}^{hat p}^{rocess. For example, N}^{EPA does}
^{not req}^{uire an age}^{ncy to elevate}^{environmental con}^cern^{s above ot}^{hers. If t}^{he adver}^se
^{environmental ef}^{fects of t}^he^prop^{osed action are adequately identif}^{ied and evaluated,}
^{the agenc}^{y is not const}^{rained by}^{NEPA from deciding that}^other^b^{enefits outweigh t}^he
^{environmental costs a}^{nd moving f}^{orward with the action. That is, a}ⁿ^agenc^{y is not}
^curre^{ntly re}^{quired b}^y^N^{EPA to choose or reject a project alternat}^{ive based on its}
ⁱ^{ki/CRS-RL33267}^{environmental impa}^cts.
^g/w^{5.3: Require C}^{EQ to p}^romulgate^{guidance to make e}^nvironmental^mitigati^{on proposals}^{CEQ reg}^{ulations req}^{uire an}^{EIS or ROD to include a discussion or}^{analysis of measu}^res
^s^.or^{binding on the}^agency^recommeⁿ^{ding the action.}^{that may}^{be take}^{n to mitigate the}^environme^{ntal impact of a}^propo^{sed alternative (40}
^le^ak^{Amend N}^{EPA to “recognize that}^mitigati^{on proposals that a}^{[sic] u}^tili^{zed as part of}^C.F.R^{. §}^§¹⁵⁰^{2.14(f) and}¹⁵^02.1⁶⁽^{h)). However, it is not required t}^{hat mitigation}
^measures^{discussed in t}^{he N}^EPA^{documentation actually be im}^{plemented, only that t}^he
^://wiki^{the decision-making process}^mus^{t be impleme}^nted.”^{environmental impa}^{cts of an}^{action be considered if s}^uch^measu^re^{s were impleme}^nted.
^h^ttp^{CEQ guidance is}^{not enfor}^{ceable. It is un}^{clear whet}^{her C}^{EQ g}^{uidance directing}
^{agencies to req}^{uire a “mitigation guarantee”}^{would be e}^nforceable.

^{Summary Comments}
^{Recommendation}^Gro^{up 6—}^Bet^{ter federal agency c}^oor^dination
^{6.1: Require C}^{EQ to p}^romulgate^{regulations that would enco}^urage^{more consultation}^{Agency and}^pu^{blic participation r}^equireme^{nts are}^cu^{rrently s}^{pecified in CEQ}
^{with interested stake}^{holders. Those regulations “will focus on cre}^{ating a mecha}^nism^{regulations for p}^{rojects req}^{uiring an E}^{IS. When determining}^the^sc^{ope of issues to be}
^{that includes all app}^{ropriate stak}^{eholders with particular}^emp^hasis^{on not including}^{addressed and identifying the}^sign^{ificant issues related to a p}^ropose^{d actions, CEQ}
^{‘fringe’ elements that wo}^{uld only seek to delay the decision-making process.”}^{regulations (40 C.F.R. § 1501.7)}^r^{equire age}^{ncies to “invite the}^par^{ticipation of affected}
^{Federal, State, and l}^{ocal agencies,}^{any aff}^{ected Indian t}^{ribe, the}^pro^{ponent of t}^{he action,}
^{and other inte}^{rested pe}^{rsons (inc}^{luding those who might}^{not be in}^{accord with the}
^{action on environme}^{ntal grounds}^{).” CEQ regulations (40}^C.F.R.^{§ 150}^{6.6) also specify}
^{that agencies m}^{ust “ma}^{ke diligent efforts to involve the}^pu^{blic in pr}^{eparing a}^nd
^{implementing their}^NEPA^proced^{ures” a}^{nd how s}^{uch e}^{fforts s}^{hould be made.}
^{The CEQ}^{regulations (40}^C.F.R.¹⁵⁰^{1.4(b)) s}^{pecify that}^{if an actio}^{n does not re}^{quire a}ⁿ
^{EIS, the agen}^{cy s}^{hall involve environmental agencies, ap}^{plicants, an}^{d the p}^ublic,^{to the}
^{extent practicable}^{, in preparing}^EA^{s. Otherwise, p}^{ublic participation}^req^uirements^for
^{projects req}^{uiring an}^{EA or C}^E^a^{re left largely to the discretion of}^{the lead agency. It is}
^{unclear f}^{rom the ta}^{sk force}^repo^{rt whet}^{her t}^{he recomme}^ndation^{would apply to EAs}
^{and CEs.}
ⁱ^{ki/CRS-RL33267}^{It is likely that attempts to define}^{“fringe element}^{s” in th}^{e N}^{EPA p}^{rocess or to identify}
^g/w^{a stakeholder as one t}^{hat is seeki}^{ng to delay the decision-making p}^{rocess would be}
^s^.or^litigated^.
^le^ak^{6.2: Amend N}^{EPA to clarify the}^r^{esponsibility of lead agencies to charge t}^{hat agenc}^y^{With regard to EIS development,}^curre^{nt C}^{EQ reg}^{ulations (40 C.F}^{.R. § 1508.16) define}
^{with “the re}^{sponsibility to develo}^{p a consolidated record for the}^{NEPA reviews, E}^IS^{“lead agency” as the}^agency^{or ag}^{encies pr}^eparing^{or having ta}^ken^primary
^://wiki^{development, and other}^{NEPA d}^ecisions.”^{responsibility for pr}^{eparing a}ⁿ^EIS^.
^h^ttp^{The task force}^{report does}^{not include details regarding what co}ⁿ^{stitutes “other}^NEPA
^{decisions” for which a lead agenc}^{y would have res}^ponsibility.
^{Recommendation}^Gro^{up 7—}^{Additional autho}^{rity for C}^E^Q
^{7.1: Amend N}^{EPA to direct CEQ}^{to “control NEPA related costs”}^{and provide CEQ}^{There are c}^u^r^{rently few}^{data on}^{NEPA-related costs. They may}^b^e^{difficult to}
^{with statutory a}^{uthority to do so. Direct CEQ to bring}^recommen^{dation to Congress}^{determine beca}^{use it is difficult t}^o^{isolate costs or project expens}^{es associated}^only
^{for cost ceiling policies.}^{with NEPA. For exam}^{ple, environmental analyse}^{s may}^{be re}^quire^{d purs}^uant^to
^{separate stat}^{utory r}^e^q^uirements^(e.g.^{, the Clean Water Act, Clean}^{Air Act, Endange}^red
^{Species Act).}

^{Summary Comments}
^{Recommendation}^Gro^{up 8—}^{Clarify the meaning of}^“cum^{ulative impacts”}
^{8.1: Amend N}^{EPA to clarify how}^{agencies would evaluate the}^effec^{t of past actions for}^{CEQ reg}^{ulations (40 C.F.R. 1508.}^{7) define cu}^{mulative impacts as}^t^{hose that “ca}^{n res}^ult
^{assessing cu}^{mulative impacts. Ad}^{d a provision to establish that a}ⁿ^agency’s^{from individually minor but collectively significant actions taking place over a pe}^{riod of}
^{“assessment}^{of existing e}^nvironm^{ental conditions is the app}^ropriat^{e methodology to}^{time.” Such impacts include t}^hose^{which re}^{sult from t}^{he inc}^rement^{al impact of the}
^{account for}^{past actions.”}^{action when added to other}^{past, prese}^{nt, and reaso}^{nably foreseea}^{ble fut}^{ure actions.}
^{In looking at the impact of}^{past a}^{ctions, CEQ guidance}^b^s^{pecifies t}^{hat a review of s}^uch
^{actions is required to t}^{he exte}^nt^{that the}^{review informs ag}^ency^{decision making. The}
^{analysis of past actions may}^{identify trends}^{that could influe}^{nce t}^h^e^{effects of c}^u^r^rent
^{actions. CEQ’s interpr}^{etation is b}^{ased, in part, on pr}^{evious court d}^{ecisions. Changes to}
^{that inter}^{pretation would likely be litigated as wel}^l.
^{8.2: Require C}^{EQ to p}^romulgate^{regulations that would modify exi}^{sting regulations}^{CEQ’s interp}^{retation of what}^{constitutes “rea}^{sonably fores}^eeable^{” futu}^{re actions is}
^{(40 C.F.R. 1508.7) to clarify w}^{hich type}^{s of fut}^ure^{actions would b}^e^considered^{based, in part, on}^{previous cas}^{e law. Changes to the}^{regulatory de}^{finition would l}^ikely
^{“reasonably foreseea}^{ble” whe}^{n c}^{onducting cu}^{mulative impact a}^{nalysis. The regulations}^{be litigated. Further, new ter}^min^{ology such as “sp}^{eculative actions}^{” would likely be}
^{should “make certain t}^{hat s}^pecul^{ative actions are not ‘reasona}^{ble’ within the conte}^xt^litigated^.
^{of cumulative impacts.”}
ⁱ^{ki/CRS-RL33267}^{Amend N}^{EPA to instruct}^federal^{agencies to employ “pra}^{ctical considerations to}^{assesses t}^{he p}^{racticality of a futu}^r^e^{action’s impacts on the}^environ^ment.”
^g/w
^s^.or^{Recommendation}^Gro^{up 9—}^Studies
^le^ak^{9.1: Require C}^{EQ to conduct}^stu^{dies to determine or evaluate: how NEPA intera}^cts^{The Task Force recomme}^{ndations do not discuss how m}^uch^fu^{nding, if any, CEQ}
^{with other federal e}^nvironme^{ntal laws; the amount, if a}^{ny, of duplication and overlap}^{would receive to conduct the}^{se s}^tudies.
^://wiki^{in the e}^{nvironmental evaluation}^p^{rocess; and pote}^{ntial methods to address overlaps}
^h^ttp^{among federal laws.}
^{9.2: Require C}^{EQ to conduct}^{a st}^{udy of federal agenc}^{y N}^{EPA staffi}^{ng issues.}^{The Task Force recomme}^{ndations do not discuss how m}^uch^fu^{nding, if any, CEQ}
^{would receive to conduct the}^{se s}^tudies.
^{9.3: Require C}^{EQ to conduct}^{a st}^{udy of N}^{EPA’s interaction with st}^{ate “mini-NEPAs.”}^{The Task Force recomme}^{ndations do not discus}^{s how m}^uch^fu^{nding, if any, CEQ}
^{would receive to conduct the}^{se s}^tudies.
^Source:^{Congressional Researc}^h^{Service (CRS) review of recommendations in the}^{House Resou}^r^{ce Committee’s Task Force on I}^{mproving th}^{e Na}^{tional E}^nvironm^ental
^Pol^{icy Act,}^{Initial Fin}^{dings and Dr}^af^{t Recom}^mendations^{, Dec. 21,}²⁰⁰⁵^.
^a.^{Council on Environm}^{ental Q}^{uality, “Forty Most Asked Questions}^{Concerning C}^{EQ’s National E}^{nvironmental Policy Act Regulations,”}⁴⁶^{Fed. Reg.}^18,0²⁶^{(Mar. 2}^3,
¹⁹⁸^{1), available at}^{http://ceq.eh.d}^oe.gov/^nepa/^regs/40/^40P^{1.htm, as}^{of Aug. 24,}²⁰^06.
^b.^{Council on Environm}^{ental Q}^{uality, “Guidance on t}^{he Consideration of Past Actions in Cum}^{ulative Effects}^{Analysis,” Jun}^{e 2}^{4, 20}⁰⁵^a^{vailable at http://ceq.eh.doe.gov/}
^nepa/^{regs/guidance.html, as of Au}^{g. 24, 20}^06.

^Lⁱⁿ^d^{a Lu}^t^h^er
^An^al^y^s^{t i}ⁿ^En^vⁱ^r^oⁿ^m^eⁿ^{tal P}^o^lic^y
^l^l^u^t^h^er@^c^rs^.l^oc.^g^ov^{, 7-}⁶⁸⁵²