CEQ publishes NEPA efficiency guidance

White House council recommends some ways to reduce overlapping work, unnecessary complexity in federal environmental reviews

Alan Bailey

Petroleum News

The White House Council on Environmental Quality, or CEQ, the organization that oversees federal environmental policies, has published new guidance for improving the efficiency of environmental reviews under the National Environmental Policy Act. The National Environmental Policy Act, or NEPA, requires an activity involving a federal action such as the issuing of a federal permit to undergo a review of potential environmental impacts, with a review perhaps involving the preparation of an environmental assessment or an environmental impact statement.

The time and uncertainty involved in preparing and issuing NEPA documents such as environmental impact statements by the federal government have become major issues in many oil and gas projects.

CEQ says that government regulations already describe efficiencies that can be applied in the preparation of environmental impact statements, the most complex and time consuming of the NEPA reviews. The new guidance will clarify how these efficiencies can be applied in all types of environmental reviews, the council says.

“NEPA ensures the federal government makes informed decisions and engages Americans in decisions that will impact their communities and environment,” said Nancy Sutley, chair of the Council on Environmental Quality. “This guidance will help agencies improve the quality and timeliness of their environmental reviews to protect the health of communities and support a strong American economy.”

Nine topics

1. The need for concise NEPA documents that use plain language to focus on relevant analysis. An environmental impact statement should be less than 150 pages in length, unless it addresses proposals of unusual scope or complexity.

2. The integration of the NEPA process as early as possible into the planning for a proposal, to ensure that all of the necessary environmental analysis and consultations can be completed before a decision on the proposal needs to be made.

3. The use of the scoping process in a NEPA review to ensure the elimination of insignificant issues from the review, the focusing of attention on the more important issues and the identification of opportunities for coordination between different government agencies.

4. The cooperation of federal agencies “to the fullest extent possible” with tribal, state and local governments, integrating NEPA analysis as much as possible with similar environmental analysis done within these other government jurisdictions.

5. The integration of work on a draft environmental impact statement with concurrent work being done to meet the requirements of executive orders or other statutes, such as the National Historic Preservation Act or the Endangered Species Act.

6. The adoption, where possible, by an agency conducting a NEPA review of all or part of an environmental assessment or environmental impact statement prepared by another federal agency to address an identical or similar proposed action.

7. The incorporation, where appropriate, of material into a NEPA document by reference to the source of the material, rather than by replicating the material in the NEPA document.

8. The expeditious use of errata and cover sheets to deal with minor corrections, rather than rewriting a draft NEPA document, when responding to public comments on the draft document.

9. The setting of clear and realistic time limits for conducting and completing a NEPA review.