x^ed sta^
*	- U.S. Environmental Protection Agency	13-P-0352

i	\ Office of Inspector General	August 22,2013
s
'%>.—'—'J"
% V|// "
At a Glance
Why We Did This Review
The purpose of this review was
to determine the impact the
U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency has on final federal
agency Environmental Impact
Statements under the National
Environmental Policy Act. As
required by NEPA and Section
309 of the Clean Air Act, the
EPA reviews EISs that evaluate
the anticipated environmental
impacts of proposed major
federal actions. The EPA
reviews hundreds of EISs
annually, involving a wide
range of federal projects.
Projects covered by EISs
include renewable energy,
major highway, and oil and gas
development projects.
This report addresses the
following EPA Goals or
Cross-Cutting Strategies:
•	Taking action on climate
change and improving air
quality.
•	Protecting America's waters.
•	Cleaning up communities and
advancing sustainable
development.
•	Ensuring the safety of
chemicals and preventing
pollution.
•	Expanding the conversation
on environmentalism.
•	Working for environmental
justice and children's health.
For further information, contact
our Office of Congressional and
Public Affairs at (202) 566-2391.
The full report is at:
www.epa.aov/oia/reports/2013/
20130822-13-P-0352.pdf
The EPA's Comments Improve the
Environmental Impact Statement Process But
Verification of Agreed-Upon Actions Is Needed
What We Found
We found that federal agencies are making changes to their EISs to mitigate or
eliminate potential environmental risks based on the EPA's comments. In our
review of a sample of EISs and in discussions with federal agencies, we found
that the EPA's comments directly resulted in positive changes to final EISs. The
eight federal agencies we interviewed all stated that they changed their final EISs
based on the EPA's comment on their draft EISs.
The EPA's goal was to mitigate at least 70 percent of the environmental impacts
identified in its Section 309 reviews of EISs. The EPA tracks progress on its goal
by counting the number of substantive comments it makes on EISs and the
responses (mitigation) from the lead federal agency. For 2012, the EPA reported
it exceeded its goal and obtained a 75-percent result for substantive comments
addressed by the federal agency. This measure captures the prospective impact
of the EPA's proposed mitigation measures. It does not measure the federal
agency's actual mitigation actions or outcomes (i.e., impacts), nor is there a
system in place to do this. The EPA also provided us with "success stories"
evidencing changes made by the federal agencies in response to the EPA's
comments. However noteworthy, these "success stories" do not measure or track
actual mitigation actions implemented or outcomes.
The EPA has the authority to request and obtain information from lead federal
agencies about agreed-upon mitigation measures. In addition, the EPA's 1984
Policy and Procedures for the Review of Federal Actions Impacting the
Environment states that the EPA can conduct follow-up activities on EPA's
comments on final EISs in part to ensure that agreed-upon mitigation measures
are identified in the Record of Decision and are fully implemented. The EPA can
more accurately assess and more completely report its results in mitigating
environmental impacts of federal government projects by following up on
implementation of agreed-upon mitigation measures.
Recommendation and Planned Agency Corrective Action
We recommend that the EPA direct its NEPA compliance division to conduct,
on a selected basis, follow-up activities on final EISs including contacting lead
agencies and documenting the results of these reviews.
The agency concurred with our findings and recommendation. The agency
indicated that it will work to develop a plan by December 1, 2013, to conduct
these follow-up activities on a selected basis and as limited resources allow. The
recommendation is resolved and open with corrective actions ongoing. No further
EPA response to this report is required.

-------