U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL

The EPA’s Comments Improve 

the Environmental Impact 

Statement Process But 

Verification of Agreed-Upon 

Actions Is Needed 

Report No. 13-P-0352 August 22, 2013 

Scan this mobile 

code to learn more 

about the EPA OIG. 
 

 

 

 

 

Report Contributors: Laurie Adams

 Daniel Carroll 

 Jerri Dorsey

 Gabrielle Fekete 

 Steven Weber 

Abbreviations 

EIS Environmental Impact Statement 

EPA U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 

GPRA Government Performance and Results Act 

NEPA National Environmental Policy Act 

OECA Office of Enforcement and Compliance Assurance 

Hotline 

To report fraud, waste, or abuse, contact us through one of the following methods: 

email: OIG_Hotline@epa.gov write: EPA Inspector General Hotline 

phone: 

fax: 

1-888-546-8740 

202-566-2599 

1200 Pennsylvania Avenue NW 

Mailcode 2431T 

online: http://www.epa.gov/oig/hotline.htm Washington, DC 20460 
 

 

 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 13-P-0352 

August 22, 2013 Office of Inspector General 

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.gov/oig/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. 
 

 

 

UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20460 

THE INSPECTOR GENERAL 

August 22, 2013 

MEMORANDUM 

SUBJECT:	 The EPA’s Comments Improve the Environmental Impact Statement Process 

But Verification of Agreed-Upon Actions Is Needed 

Report No. 13-P-0352 

FROM:	 Arthur A. Elkins Jr. 

TO: Susan Bromm, Director 

Office of Federal Activities 

Office of Enforcement and Compliance Assurance 

This is a report on the subject evaluation conducted by the Office of Inspector General of the U.S. 

Environmental Protection Agency. This report contains findings that describe the problems the OIG has 

identified and corrective actions the OIG recommends. This report represents the opinion of the OIG and 

does not necessarily represent the final EPA position. Final determinations on matters in this report will 

be made by EPA managers in accordance with established audit resolution procedures. 

Action Required 

You are not required to provide a written response to this final report, because you agreed to the 

report’s recommendation and provided a corrective action and completion date that meets the 

intent of the recommendation. The recommendation is resolved and open with corrective actions 

ongoing. 

Should you choose to provide a response to this final report, we will post your response on the OIG’s 

public website, along with our memorandum commenting on your response. You should provide your 

response as an Adobe PDF file that complies with the accessibility requirements of Section 508 of the 

Rehabilitation Act of 1973, as amended. 

We will post this report to our website at http://www.epa.gov/oig. 

If you or your staff have any questions regarding this report, please contact Assistant Inspector General 

for Program Evaluation Carolyn Copper at (202) 566-0829 or copper.carolyn@epa.gov; or Acting 

Director for Toxics, Chemical Management, and Pollution Prevention Evaluations Jerri Dorsey at 

(919) 541-3601 or dorsey.jerri@epa.gov. 
The EPA’s Comments Improve the 13-P-0352 

Environmental Impact Statement Process But 

Verification of Agreed-Upon Actions Is Needed 

Table of Contents 

Purpose........................................................................................................................ 1
 

Background ................................................................................................................. 1
 

Scope and Methodology............................................................................................. 2
 

Results of Review ....................................................................................................... 2
 

The EPA’s Positive Impact on EISs ..................................................................... 3 

Improving Demonstration of Program Results ..................................................... 3 

Conclusions................................................................................................................. 5 

Recommendation........................................................................................................ 5 

Agency Comments and OIG Evaluation ................................................................... 5 

Status of Recommendation and Potential Monetary Benefits................................ 6
 

Appendices 

A Environmental Impact Statements Reviewed.................................................. 7 

B Examples of Lead Agency Response to the EPA’s Comments..................... 8 

C Agency Response .............................................................................................. 10 

D Distribution ......................................................................................................... 12 
 

 

 

Purpose 

The purpose of this review was to determine the impact the U.S. Environmental 

Protection Agency has on final federal agency Environmental Impact Statements 

prepared under the National Environmental Policy Act. As required by NEPA and 

Section 309 of the Clean Air Act, the EPA’s Office of Federal Activities reviews 

EISs that evaluate the anticipated environmental impacts of proposed major 

federal actions. 

Background 

Title I of NEPA contains a Declaration of National Environmental Policy which, 

in part, requires the federal government to use all practicable means to create and 

maintain conditions under which man and nature can exist in productive harmony. 

Two major purposes of the NEPA process are better informed decisions and 

citizen involvement, both of which should lead to implementation of NEPA’s 

policies. NEPA’s procedural requirements apply to all federal agencies in the 

executive branch. 

Section 102 of NEPA requires federal agencies to incorporate environmental 

considerations in their planning and decision-making through a systematic 

interdisciplinary approach. Specifically, all federal agencies are to prepare detailed 

statements including an assessment of the environmental impact of and alternatives 

to major federal actions significantly affecting the environment. These statements 

are commonly referred to as environmental impact statements. After the federal 

agency prepares a draft EIS, a notice of availability is published in the Federal 

Register. Federal agencies and other outside parties have at least 45 days to 

comment on draft EISs. The agency then assesses comments received, revises the 

EIS accordingly, and publishes a final EIS. After a final EIS is prepared and at the 

time of its decision, the federal agency will prepare a public record of its decision 

addressing how the findings of the EIS, including consideration of alternatives, 

were incorporated into the agency’s decision-making process. 

The EPA’s Section 309 NEPA Review Program 

The EPA has a unique responsibility in the NEPA review process. Under 

Section 309 of the Clean Air Act, EPA is required to review and publicly 

comment on the environmental impacts of major federal actions, including actions 

which are the subject of EISs. The EPA is mandated to review and provide 

comment on draft EISs put forth by other federal agencies. 

To achieve this mandate, the EPA has created an environmental review process 

that uses two scales to evaluate draft EISs. One rates the environmental impact of 

the proposed action, and the other rates the adequacy of information presented in 

the draft EIS. The EPA uses these rating scales to comment on the draft EISs from 

federal agencies. The EPA provides these ratings and comments in the form of a 

13-P-0352 1 
 

 

letter, provided within the required timeframe for review. The EPA’s review is 

intended to help federal agencies identify and ultimately avoid or mitigate 

potential adverse impacts from their projects. 

Scope and Methodology 

We conducted our work from November 2012 through July 2013 in accordance 

with generally accepted government auditing standards. Those standards require 

that we plan and perform our work to obtain sufficient, appropriate evidence to 

provide a reasonable basis for our findings and conclusions based on our 

objectives. We believe that the evidence obtained provides a reasonable basis for 

our findings and conclusions based on our objectives. 

Our review focused on assessing the impact of the EPA’s review and comment on 

federal agency EISs. The team held a series of meetings with the EPA’s Office of 

Federal Activities to gain an understanding of the NEPA process and the EPA’s 

role. We received database access for the agency’s internal EIS tracking system, 

and learned how to use the NEPAssist geographic information system tool. We 

reviewed documents from both the EPA and the Council on Environmental 

Quality, as well as academic literature on the NEPA process. 

To assess the process in practice, we selected 10 of 218 final EISs received by the 

EPA in 2012 (see appendix A). We then reviewed the draft and final comment 

letters to document the ratings, the EPA’s comments, and the lead agency’s 

response to these comments. We documented how potential environmental 

impacts were avoided between draft and final and how/if those can be connected 

back to EPA comment and involvement. As part of this review, we spoke to both 

the EPA lead reviewer and the lead federal agency contact for each sampled EIS. 

We interviewed staff in EPA Regions 3, 4, 6, 8 and 9. We also spoke with 

representatives from the following federal agencies: U.S. Army Corps of 

Engineers, U.S. Marine Corps, Nuclear Regulatory Commission, U.S. National 

Park Service, Bureau of Land Management (two sites), U.S. Forest Service, and 

Bureau of Reclamation. 

Results of Review 

The EPA is having a positive impact on final EISs. Federal agencies are generally 

responsive to the EPA’s comments on the draft EIS and make changes to their 

final EISs based on the EPA’s comments and recommendations. The EPA staff 

analyze final EISs and compute the percentage of impacts mitigated as a result of 

the EPA reviews. However, the EPA currently only measures the prospective 

impact of mitigation. The EPA has no formal or systematic process in place to 

determine actual mitigation outcomes and therefore does not conduct follow-up 

actions designed to examine these impacts. The EPA’s Policy and Procedures 

Manual identifies that EPA can conduct, on a selected basis, follow-up on the 

13-P-0352 2 
 

 

 

 

comments and mitigation measures proposed in final EISs. The agency cited 

limited resources as the barrier to follow-up. 

The EPA’s Positive Impact on EISs 

We found that lead federal agencies are making changes to their EISs based on 

the EPA’s comments on draft EISs. In our review of the EISs and in discussions 

with lead federal agencies, we found that the EPA’s comments directly resulted in 

changes to the majority of the final EISs we reviewed. The method by which lead 

agencies responded varied across project type and agency. For one of our sampled 

items, there were two substantive changes from the draft to the final based on the 

EPA’s comment. These included the disclosure of $4.2 million in mitigation 

funds that will be spent to reduce health impacts in low-income and minority 

communities and a commitment to a reduced review timeframe for air quality 

issues. For additional examples of the final EIS changes, see appendix B. 

The eight federal agencies we interviewed all stated that they changed their final 

EISs based on the EPA’s comment on their draft EISs. We found a range of 

changes, from minor enhancements to major project modifications. One lead 

federal agency indicated a significant change, noting that the project originally 

proposed would have used large amounts of water. Based on comments from the 

EPA regarding water use, the project changed to utilizing a process which 

reduced water need. Interviews with the five regional NEPA offices’ staff found 

that lead federal agencies use the EPA’s comments effectively to change and 

improve their EISs. One region provided an example of a new federal facility1 

which would have encompassed 1,500 acres. In that case, the lead agency’s first 

choice was undeveloped farm land. According to regional staff, the EPA engaged 

the agency and had them do an EIS. They ultimately picked the productive reuse 

of an existing federal facility. 

Improving Demonstration of Program Results 

The EPA’s Government Performance and Results Act goal for the NEPA review 

program is a “... percent of significant impacts identified by EPA during the 

NEPA review of all major proposed federal actions that will be mitigated.” The 

EPA’s target was to have 70 percent of the impacts identified in the EPA’s 

comment letters on the draft EIS mitigated in the agency’s response in the final 

EIS. Project impacts on human health and the environment, and mitigation 

measures, include: 

 Choosing a less environmentally damaging alternative. 

 Putting in wetlands mitigation measures. 

 Working with environmental justice communities.2 

1

 This case was further outlined in the success story document provided to us by the agency. 2

 According to the Council on Environmental Quality regulations, “Mitigation” includes: (a) avoiding the impact 

altogether by not taking a certain action or parts of an action; (b) minimizing impacts by limiting the degree or 

13-P-0352 3 
 

 

 

 

The program’s GPRA measure is documented with a count of substantive 

comments (impacts) by the EPA and responses (mitigation) from the lead agency. 

In assessing its success, the EPA completes a “GPRA Form” for each final EIS 

reviewed. The EPA’s GPRA measure form outlines EPA’s comments on the draft 

EIS and final EIS. In addition to the comments, it provides the EPA’s assessment 

as to actions taken by the lead agency based on EPA comment. For fiscal year 

2012, EPA reported that it met its performance goals for the NEPA program: 

“75% of the significant impacts identified in EPA’s comment letters on Draft 

EISs were avoided, minimized, or compensated for ("mitigated") by the lead 

agencies in the final EISs published in FY 2012.” 

The lead federal agency responses to assure mitigation are not validated by EPA. 

Agency EISs outline the expected benefits and consequences of a proposed 

project. The mitigation measures included in these documents based on the EPA 

comment are prospective improvements. The EPA currently has no system in 

place to determine actual mitigation outcomes (i.e., impacts) based on the EIS 

comments it provides. 

According to EPA program staff, they consider their involvement in the EIS 

process to end with the final EIS. There is only limited assessment of the Records 

of Decision for these projects, and no verification that the agreed upon mitigation 

measures occur when the projects go to construction. As a result, the EPA can 

only project environmental effect from its review and comment. Three of the five 

regional NEPA leads from our sample said that follow-up on selected projects is 

needed. They indicated a need for follow-up to ensure that agreed upon mitigation 

measures are actually put into place. 

Council on Environmental Quality regulations implementing NEPA provide 

authority under which EPA can request and obtain information from lead agencies 

about agreed upon mitigation measures. The regulation states that, upon request, 

the lead agency shall inform cooperating or commenting agencies on progress in 

carrying out mitigation measures which they have proposed and which were 

adopted by the agency making the decision. 

In addition, the EPA’s 1984 Policy and Procedures for the Review of Federal 

Actions Impacting the Environment states that the EPA can conduct on a selected 

basis follow-up activities on comments on final EISs in part to ensure that 

agreed-upon mitigation measures are identified in the Record of Decision, and 

that the agreed-upon mitigation measures are fully implemented. The policy also 

notes that, where resources allow, the EPA is encouraged to assess the level of 

compliance and effectiveness of federal agency mitigation measures. The lack of 

magnitude of the action and its implementation; (c) rectifying the impact by repairing, rehabilitating, or restoring the 

affected environment; (d) reducing or eliminating the impact over time by preservation and maintenance operations 

during the life of the action; and (e) compensating for the impact by replacing or providing substitute resources or 

environments. 

13-P-0352 4 
 

 

a follow-up system to assess whether mitigation actions were implemented could 

misinform the EPA program performance decisions, and public stakeholder 

assessments about the EPA’s actual impact and outcomes on the NEPA review 

process. 

Conclusions 

Although the lead federal agencies’ have responsibility for implementing and 

monitoring agreed-upon mitigation measures, the EPA has the authority to request 

actual data on mitigation progress from lead federal agencies and follow up on the 

results of actions EPA has recommended. The agency cited limited resources as a 

barrier to follow-up. However, resources could be selectively applied to follow up 

on high priority or high impact federal projects to ensure that the agreed-upon 

mitigation measures are actually implemented. As many federal agencies 

resources are constrained at this time, it becomes more vital to ensure that 

commitments made in the NEPA process were acted on. Moreover, the EPA can 

more accurately assess and more completely report its results in mitigating 

environmental impacts of federal government projects by following up on the 

implementation of agreed upon mitigation measures. 

Recommendation 

We recommend that the director, Office of Federal Activities, Office of 

Enforcement and Compliance Assurance: 

1.	 Direct the NEPA Compliance Division to conduct, on a selected basis, 

follow-up activities on EPA’s proposed mitigation measures adopted 

by agencies in final EISs, including contacting lead agencies and 

documenting the results of these reviews. 

Agency Comments and OIG Evaluation 

The agency concurred with our findings and recommendation. The agency 

provided a corrective action and estimated completion date that meets the intent 

of the recommendation. The recommendation is resolved and open with corrective 

actions ongoing. No further EPA response to this report is required. The agency’s 

detailed response is provided in Appendix C. 

13-P-0352 5 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Status of Recommendation and 

Potential Monetary Benefits 

POTENTIAL MONETARY 

RECOMMENDATIONS BENEFITS (in $000s) 

Rec. 

No. 

Page 

No. Subject Status1 Action Official 

Planned 

Completion 

Date 

Claimed 

Amount 

Agreed-To 

Amount 

1 5 Direct the NEPA Compliance Division to conduct, 

on a selected basis, follow-up activities on EPA’s 

proposed mitigation measures adopted by 

agencies in final EISs, including contacting lead 

agencies and documenting the results of these 

reviews. 

O Director, Office of 

Federal Activities, 

Office of Enforcement and 

Compliance Assurance 

12/1/13 

O = recommendation is open with agreed-to corrective actions pending 

C = recommendation is closed with all agreed-to actions completed 

U = recommendation is unresolved with resolution efforts in progress 

13-P-0352 6 

1 
 

 

 

Appendix A 

Environmental Impact Statements Reviewed 

Lead Agency Title Status of Action 

National Park 

Service 

Hampton National Historic Site, General Management Plan, 

Implementation, Baltimore County, Maryland 

Underway 

Department of 

Transportation 

US-1 Transportation Improvements, Updated Information, from 

Sandhill Road (NC 1971) to just North of Fox Road (NC 1606) to 

Martson Road (NC 1001) , Funding, and COE Section 404 Permit, 

City of Rockingham, Richmond County, North Carolina 

No Information 

Nuclear 

Regulatory 

Commission 

Levy Nuclear Plant Units 1 and 2, Application for Combined Licenses 

(COLs) for Construction Permits and Operating Licenses, 

(NUREG-1941), Levy County, Florida 

On Hold (expected 

to begin in 2015 or 

later) 

Bureau of Land 

Management 

HB In-Situ Solution Mining Project, Proposal to Extract the Potash 

Remaining in Inactive Underground Mine, NPDES Permit, Eddy 

County, New Mexico 

Underway 

U.S. Forest 

Service 

Black Fork Salvage Project, Proposal to Treat Timer Harvest, 

Prescribe Fire, and Mechanical Thinning, Uinta-Wasatch-Cache 

National Forest, Summit County, Utah 

Not Started 

Bureau of Land 

Management 

Sonoran Solar Energy Project, Construction and Operation of a 

3756-megawatt (MW) Concentrated Solar Thermal Power Plant and 

Ancillary Facilities on 3,702 Areas, Right-of-Way Granting, Maricopa 

County, Arizona 

Not Started 

Bureau of 

Reclamation 

Upper Truckee River Restoration and Golf Course Reconfiguration 

Project, to Restore Natural Geomorphic Ecological Process, Lake 

Tahoe, EL Dorado County, California 

Currently in 

Litigation 

Federal Energy 

Regulatory 

Commission 

Eagle Mountain Pumped Storage Hydroelectric Project, Licensing 

Application for Eagle Mountain Mine, Near the Town of Desert Center, 

Riverside County, California 

Currently in 

Litigation 

U.S. Army Corps 

of Engineers 

Berths 302-306 American Presidents Line (APL) Container Terminal 

Project, Construction and Operation, US Army COE Section 10 and 

Section 103 of the Marine Protection Research and Sanctuaries Act, 

Los Angeles County, California 

Unknown 

Department of 

the Navy 

Marine Corps Air Ground Combat Center Project, Land Acquisition 

and Airspace Establishment to Support Large-Scale MAGTF Live-Fire 

and Maneuver Training Facility, Twentynine Palms, San Bernardino 

County, California 

ROD signed 

February 2013. 

Request FAA to 

commence air 

space proposal 

review. Goal for 

FAA to complete by 

2014. 

Sources: EPA’s internal EIS tracking database and interviews. 

13-P-0352 7 
 

 

Appendix B 

Examples of Lead Agency Response 

to the EPA’s Comments 

Project Draft EIS Impact EPA Comment Final EIS 

Berths 302-

306 American 

Presidents 

Line (APL) 

Container 

Terminal 

Project, 

Construction 

and 

Operation, US 

Army Corps of 

Engineers 

The EJ analysis and 

conclusions in the 

DEIS state that there 

will be 

disproportionately high 

and adverse effects on 

minority and lowincome populations 

due to air quality 

impacts. 

We recognize the considerable level of 

analysis in the DEIS, but we note that 

the proposed mitigation does not fully 

offset the significant project-related 

impacts to the local community. The 

local community is already heavily 

impacted, a condition likely to be 

exacerbated by the many projects 

currently planned at and around the 

Port, such as the Corps of Engineers 

Pier S project, the Southern California 

International Gateway, and perhaps 

the expansion of Interstate 710. 

The lead agencies have 

$4.2 million in mitigation 

funds that will be spent 

to reduce health impacts 

in low-income and 

minority communities 

(e.g. schools, housing, 

health clinics, etc.). 

Levy Nuclear As many as 2092.9 The FEIS should provide a detailed In response to EPA’s 

Plant (LNP) acres of wetlands mitigation plan and the UMAM scores on-going concerns 

Units 1 and 2, could be adversely for the impact and mitigation sites. (expressed in several 

Application for affected over the EPA also recommends that a “wetland review team meetings, 

Combined course of the 60 years functional analysis” be conducted on field visits, and in our 

Licenses that groundwater is the adjacent wetlands and any DEIS comment letter) 

(COLs) for pumped to support the adverse wetland impacts due to that sustained 

Construction LNP project. The DEIS dewatering be mitigated. groundwater pumping 

Permits and also states temporary may adversely impact 

Operating dewatering of wetlands area wetlands, the FEIS 

Licenses, may occur in order to provides an analysis of 

(NUREG- install the blowdown alternative sources of 

1941), Levy pipelines and other water to support the LNP 

County, FL structures. The 

document also states 

that this may occur for 

2 to 4 year period. 

project in lieu of 

groundwater pumping. 

EPA concurs with the 

State of Florida’s 

approach. 

Berths 302-

306 American 

Presidents 

Line (APL) 

Container 

Terminal, 

Construction 

and 

Operation, US 

Army Corps of 

Engineers 

In the DEIS, the Port of 

Los Angeles 

committed to reviewing 

the terms of APL's 

lease every 7 years to 

determine if additional 

air quality 

improvements could 

be made (e.g. lower 

emitting on-dock diesel 

equipment). 

The FEIS should commit to reviewing 

new technologies every five years from 

the date of the most recent facility 

lease. Additionally, technology reviews 

and any resulting recommendations 

should be made available to the public. 

The Port of Los Angeles 

agreed to do this every 

five years. 

13-P-0352 8 
 

 

 

 

Project Draft EIS Impact EPA Comment Final EIS 

HB In-Situ The agency indicated If the analysis determines that A mitigation plan for 

Solution that the draft EIS significant cumulative impacts would impacts to groundwater 

Mining involved significant occur, a mitigation plan for these resources for water 

Project, water use. impacts should be included in the conservation 

Proposal to FEIS. A mitigation plan for impacts to improvements for the 

Extract the groundwater resources could contain entire potash mining 

Potash water conservation improvements for process, including mills, 

Remaining in the entire potash mining process, forming partnerships with 

Inactive including mills, forming partnerships area residents, farmers, 

Underground with area residents, farmers, and and public water 

Mine, NPDES public water systems, and partnering systems, and with city 

Permit, Eddy with city and county governments and and county governments 

County, NM the State's water resources 

administrator, the New Mexico Office 

of the State Engineer to promulgate 

new or improved water conservation 

guidance for mining operations. 

and the State's water 

resources administrator, 

the New Mexico Office of 

the State Engineer to 

promulgate new or 

improved water 

conservation guidance 

for mining operations. 

Source: OIG EIS tracking database and additional documentation provided by the EPA. 

Abbreviations 

APL: American Presidents Line 

COL: Combined Licenses 

DEIS: Draft Environmental Impact Statement 

EJ: Environmental Justice 

FEIS: Final Environmental Impact Statement 

LNP: Levy Nuclear Plant 

NPDES: National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System 

UMAM: Uniform Mitigation Assessment Method 

13-P-0352 9 
 

 

 

 

 

Appendix C 

Agency Response 

July 31, 2013 

MEMORANDUM 

SUBJECT: Response to Office of Inspector General's (OIG) Draft Report: "The EPA's 

Comments Improve the Environmental Impact Statement Process But Verification 

of Agreed-Upon Actions Is Needed'' (Project No. OPE-FY13-0002) 

FROM: Susan E. Bromm 

 Director 

Office of Federal Activities 

TO: Carolyn Copper 

Assistant Inspector General 

Office of Program Evaluation 

We reviewed the referenced OIG draft report and appreciate the opportunity to concur on the 

finding that EPA is having a positive impact on final Environmental Impact Statements (EISs). 

We are pleased to see that your evaluation confirms that our efforts are helping other federal 

agencies develop better NEPA analyses. 

We also appreciate the opportunity to respond to the recommendation in the draft report: 

We recommend that the director, Office of Federal Activities, Office of Enforcement 

and Compliance Assurance: 

	 Direct the NEPA Compliance Division to conduct, on a selected basis, followup activities on EPA's proposed mitigation measures adopted by agencies in 

final EISs, including contacting lead agencies and documenting the results of 

these reviews. 

While we have concerns regarding the time and resources needed to implement this 

recommendation, particularly in light of recent budget cuts, we concur with the recommendation 

and will work to develop a plan by December I, 2013 to conduct these follow-up activities on a 

selected basis and as limited resources allow. 

We would also like to note that while we can follow-up with the Lead Agencies on 

recommended mitigation measures, it is the obligation of the Lead Agency to ensure the agreed 

upon mitigation measures are fully implemented. EPA has no special role or authority under 

NEPA or the Section 309 of the Clean Air Act to ensure that Lead Agencies meet any mitigation 

13-P-0352 10 
 

 

 

commitments outlined in the agency's NEPA Record of Decision (ROD). In that light, we 

encourage you to consider working with the Inspector Generals of the Lead Agencies to conduct 

an evaluation of whether Lead Agencies are implementing the mitigation measures committed to 

in the RODs. 

Thank you again for the opportunity to review the draft report. 

13-P-0352 11 
 

 

Appendix D 

Distribution 

Office of the Administrator 

Director, Office of Federal Activities, Office of Enforcement and Compliance Assurance 

Associate Administrator, Office of Policy 

Agency Follow-Up Official (the CFO) 

Agency Follow-Up Coordinator 

General Counsel 

Associate Administrator for Congressional and Intergovernmental Relations 

Associate Administrator for External Affairs and Environmental Education 

Audit Follow-Up Coordinator, Office of Enforcement and Compliance Assurance 

13-P-0352 12