The Administrative Process Under NEPA

• Author: Nicholas C. Yost
• Pages: 9-24

Page 9

II. TheAdministrative ProcessUnder NEPA

Introduction

NEPA’s administrative process is most easily understood when it is examined chronologically. Because the

EIS is the most conspicuous part of the process,1 the following discussion is organized chronologically by

reference to the EIS. e discussion rst covers prestatement procedures—early planning, followed by the

decision on whether and when an EIS is required. It then proceeds through preparation of the statement,

and nally describes post-statement procedures. is approach parallels the organization of the CEQ regu-

lations, which trace the NEPA administrative process chronologically from agency planning,2 through EIS

preparation,3 to commenting4 and referrals of environmentally unsatisfactory projects to the CEQ,5 and

nally to agency decisions and their implementation.6

Other procedural requirements are also summarized throughout the discussion, for while litigation

has concentrated la rgely on the EIS requirement and on the requirement of considering alternatives in

less detail in EAs,7 the administrative process shaping all federal agency activity in light of environmental

considerations is pervasive. CEQ’s NEPA regulations encapsulate the various procedural requirements, in

large part codifying case law and the administrative experience of NEPA’s early years. ose regulations

discuss NEPA’s purpose,8 provide uniform terminology,9 make clear what agencies must do to comply

with NEPA,10 and summarize various other NEPA requirements.11 roughout the analysis of NEPA’s

administrative process, it is important to remember that a ll of NEPA’s procedural requirements must be

strictly obser ved.12

It is also useful to remember that the procedural requirements are to be interpreted in light of NEPA’s

purposes.13 e procedures of §102 are, after all, merely means of carr ying out the policies of §101.14 Ulti-

1. 42U.S.C.§4332(2)(C),ELRS.NEPA§102(2)(C).WhileNEPA§102(2)(E)alsorequiresagenciestoconsideralternatives,inde-

pendentoftherequirementthattheyprepareEISs,itistheEISprocessthathasoccasionedthebulkofthelitigationunderNEPA.42

U.S.C.§4332(2)(E),ELRS.NEPA§102(2)(E).

2. 40C.F.R.pt.1501.

3. Id.pt.1502.

4. Id.pt.1503.

5. Id.pt.1504.

6. Id.pt.1505.

7. Id.§1508.9.

8. Id.pt.1500.

9. Id.pt.1508.

10. Id.pt.1507.

11. Id.pt.1506.

12. CalvertClisCoordinatingComm.,Inc.v.AtomicEnergyComm’n,449F.2d1109,1112,1ELR20346,20347(D.C.Cir.

1971).eNEPAregulationsdocautionthat“trivialviolations”arenotintendedtogiverisetoindependentcausesofaction.40C.F.R.

§1500.3.

13. Seegenerally40C.F.R.pt.1500.

14. SeeNEPA§102(1),42U.S.C.§4332(1)(“thepolicies,regulations,andpubliclawsoftheUnitedStatesshallbeinterpretedandad-

ministeredinaccordancewiththepoliciessetforthinthisAct . . .”).40C.F.R.§1500.1.eCEQregulationsstressthatthePresident,

federalagencies,andthecourtsshareresponsibilityforenforcingtheActsoastoachievethesubstantiverequirementsof§101.Id.§1500.1(a).

Page 10 NEPA Deskbook

mately, the regulations caution that “it is not better documents but better decisions that count.”15 NEPA’s

purpose is “not to generate paperwork—even excellent paperwork—but to foster excellent action.”16

Above all, it should be stressed that although the Act forces decisionmakers to pay heed to environmen-

tal factors, CEQ’s NEPA regulations are also designed to reduce paperwork17 and delay.18 Implementation

of NEPA’s administrative procedures must be sensitive to these two goals.19

PrestatementProcedures

ProceduresforDeterminingWhetheranEISIsRequired

e NEPA process begins with agency planning20 and requires that environmental considerations be inte-

grated into that planning.21 CEQ’s NEPA regulations give agencies detailed guidance on how to accom-

plish this integration.22 ey also provide direction for situations in which an applicant, rather than a

federal agency, is developing a proposal.23

Once an agency begins to plan an action, it must determine whether it must complete an EIS on the

proposed action. is threshold determination is governed by NEPA, CEQ’s NEPA regulations, and the

agency’s own procedures. Agency actions can be divided into three categories.24First, agency procedures

may provide for “categorical exclusions”25 of categories of actions that individually or cumulatively do

not have signicant eects on the environment.26 Since actions in these categories do not require EISs,

the agency may simply proceed with them.27 Second, agency procedures may specify ca ses that normally

do require EISs; in such cases, the agency undertakes the process leading to EIS preparation.28 ird, an

agency may not have decided in advance whether a given t ype of action requires an EIS. In such a situa-

tion—the occasion for both disputes and litigation—the agency is to prepare an EA before proceeding.29

While CEQ’s NEPA regulations set out the minimum requirements for considering environmental

impacts, NEPA always permits agencies to do more if they choose. us, if a situation is categorically

excluded, an agency could decide to prepare an E A or EIS anyway. Similarly, if an EA would initially suf-

ce, the agency could nonetheless undertake an EIS directly without rst preparing an EA. Agencies may

do this to address or avoid controversy, or when they genuinely desire the additional environmental analysis

that more complete documentation would provide. Conversely, once an agency has completed its “action,”

NEPA imposes no ongoing obligation to continue to document environmental impacts.30

• e Categorical Exclusion. As noted above, the use of categorical exclusions enables an agency, in

advance of the subject action, to adopt procedures that provide that actions that individually and

15. 40C.F.R.§1500.1(c).

16. Id.

17. Id.§1500.4.

18. Id.§1500.5.

19. SeeExec.OrderNo.11991;seetheCEQmemorandumonecientandtimelyenvironmentalreviews,whichappearsasApp.26to

thisDeskbook.

20. 40C.F.R.pt.1501.

21. Id.§1501.1(a).

22. Id.§1501.2.

23. Id.§1501.2(d).

24. Ofcourse,forNEPAtoapply,theremustbeanunderlying“action.”SeeGrandCanyonTrustv.U.S.BureauofReclamation,691F.3d

1008,1022(9thCir.2012)(NEPAdoesn’tapplytoroutineannualreporting);MinardRunOilCo.v.U.S.ForestServices,670F.3d

236,242(3dCir.2011)(inasplitestatecontext,NEPAdoesnotapplytonoticetoproceedwithrespecttoprivatelyownedmineral

rights);butseeKarukTribev.U.S.ForestService,681F.3d1006,1021-22(9thCir.2012)(enbanc)(Courtconstrues“agencyaction”

broadlyinEndangeredSpeciesActcontext.).

25. 40 C.F.R. §1507.3(b)(2)(ii); see Sierra Club v. Bosworth, 510 F.3d 1016, 1027 (9th Cir. 2007) (allowing challenge to categorical exclusion);

Wong v. Bush, 542 F.3d 732, 737 (9th Cir. 2008) (if categorically excluded, EIS requirements inapplicable).

26. 40 C.F.R.§1508.4.

27. Id.§1501.4(a)(2).Seeinfranotes 30-33andaccompanyingtext.

28. 40 C.F.R. §1507.3(b)(2)(i); see id. §§1501.3(a), 1501.4(a)(1).

29. Id.§§1501.4(b),1508.9.

30. Nortonv.SouthernUtahWildernessAlliance,124S.Ct.2373,2384-85(2004).Ofcourse,ifthecriteriaforasupplementalEISare

met(40C.F.R.§1502.9(c))orifongoingmonitoringormitigationhasbeenprovided(40C.F.R.§§1505.2,1505.3),thentheagencies’

dutiesareongoing.