PIPELINE 

PERMITTING

Interstate and 

Intrastate Natural Gas 

Permitting Processes 

Include Multiple 

Steps, and Time 

Frames Vary

Report to Congressional Committees

February 2013

GAO-13-221

United States Government Accountability Office

GAO
United States Government Accountability Office

Highlights of GAO-13-221, a report to 

congressional committees

February 2013

PIPELINE PERMITTING

Interstate and Intrastate Natural Gas Permitting 

Processes Include Multiple Steps, and Time Frames 

Vary

Why GAO Did This Study

Recent growth in domestic natural gas 

production, particularly due to 

increased production from shale, is

resulting in an increase in the pipelines 

needed to transport that gas. 

Constructing natural gas pipelines

requires clearing and maintaining 

rights-of-way, which may disturb

habitat and historical and cultural 

resources. These resources are 

protected under a variety of federal, 

state, and local regulations 

implemented by multiple agencies. The 

laws, regulations and stakeholders 

involved in the permitting process 

depend on where the pipeline is 

constructed. FERC is the lead federal 

agency in approving interstate 

pipelines, coordinating with federal, 

state, and local agencies, but FERC is 

not involved in the approval of 

intrastate pipelines.

In response to the Pipeline Safety, 

Regulatory Certainty, and Job Creation 

Act of 2011, GAO determined (1) the 

processes necessary to acquire 

permits to construct interstate and 

intrastate natural gas pipelines, (2) 

information available on the time 

frames associated with the natural gas 

pipeline permitting process, and (3) 

stakeholder-identified management 

practices that may improve the 

permitting process. GAO reviewed 

relevant laws and regulations and 

interviewed federal officials, state 

officials from a nonprobability sample 

of 11 states, and representatives from 

natural gas industry associations and 

public interest groups. 

GAO makes no recommendations in 

this report. The Departments of 

Agriculture and Defense generally 

agreed with the findings, and the other 

agencies had no comments. 

What GAO Found

Both the interstate and intrastate natural gas pipeline permitting processes are 

complex and can involve multiple federal, state, and local agencies, as well as 

public interest groups and citizens, and include multiple steps. The interstate 

process involves a voluntary pre-filing phase, an application phase, and a postauthorization phase with multiple steps that stakeholders reported to be 

consistent among projects because the process is led by the Federal Energy 

Regulatory Commission (FERC). FERC coordinates with federal, state, and local 

agencies that have statutory and regulatory authority over various environmental 

laws and regulations. For example, if a proposed pipeline may affect endangered 

species, FERC coordinates with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, which 

reviews the impacts on such species. The intrastate process can also involve

multiple stakeholders and steps, but, unlike in the interstate process, GAO found 

that the stakeholders and steps vary by state. For example, of the 11 states GAO 

reviewed, 5 have agencies charged with approving the route of natural gas 

pipelines and require advance approval of the location and route, and the 

remaining 6 do not. Pipeline companies must also comply with various federal 

and state environmental laws and regulations; however, in most of the 11 states, 

no one agency is charged with coordinating the implementation of these laws 

and regulations as FERC is for the interstate process. 

Time frames associated with the interstate and intrastate permitting processes 

vary because of multiple factors, according to stakeholders. For the interstate 

process, FERC does not track time frames, citing the limited usefulness of such 

data. GAO analyzed public records and found that, for those projects that were 

approved from January 2010 to October 2012, the average time from pre-filing to 

certification was 558 days; the average time for those projects that began at the 

application phase was 225 days. For the intrastate process, because processes 

vary by state, the time frames of those processes may also vary. GAO found little

comprehensive data on the intrastate process. According to GAO’s discussions 

with stakeholders, several factors can affect the time frame for the permitting 

process of a given project, including different types of federal permits or 

authorizations, delays in the reviews needed by governmental stakeholders, and 

incomplete applications. For example, state and local permitting and review 

processes can affect federal decision-making time frames because some federal 

agencies will not issue their permits until state and local governments have 

completed their own permitting processes, according to some stakeholders. 

Officials from federal and state agencies and representatives from industry and 

public interest groups told GAO that several management practices could help

overcome challenges they associated with an efficient permitting process and 

obtaining public input: (1) ensure a lead agency is coordinating the efforts of 

federal, state, and local permitting processes for intrastate pipelines, (2) ensure 

effective collaboration of the numerous stakeholders involved in the permitting 

process, (3) provide planning tools to assist companies in routing pipelines and 

avoiding sensitive environmental resources, (4) offer industry the option to fund 

contractors or agency staff to expedite the permitting process, and (5) increase 

the opportunities for public comments. 

View GAO-13-221. For more information, 

contact Frank Rusco at (202) 512-3841 or 

ruscof@gao.gov.
Page i GAO-13-221 Pipeline Permitting

Letter 1 

Background 4

The Interstate and Intrastate Pipeline Permitting Processes Can be 

Complex, with Multiple Stakeholders and Steps 12

Time Frames for Interstate and Intrastate Pipeline Permitting 

Processes Vary Because of Multiple Factors 26

Natural Gas Pipeline Stakeholders Identified Management 

Practices to Improve the Permitting Process 30

Agency Comments and Our Evaluation 33

Appendix I Objectives, Scope, and Methodology 35

Appendix II Comments from the Department of Agriculture 38

Appendix III GAO Contacts and Staff Acknowledgements 39

Tables

Table 1. Some of the Federal, State, and Local Permits That May Be 

Required for a Natural Gas Pipeline Project in 

Pennsylvania 21

Table 2: Processes of 11 Selected States for Approving the Siting of 

an Intrastate Natural Gas Pipeline 23

Figures

Figure 1: FERC’s Typical Steps in the Pre-filing Phase of the 

Natural Gas Pipeline Permitting Process 13

Figure 2: FERC’s Typical Steps in the Application Phase of the 

Natural Gas Pipeline Permitting Process 16

Contents 
Page ii GAO-13-221 Pipeline Permitting

Abbreviations

BLM Bureau of Land Management

Corps Army Corps of Engineers

EA Environmental Assessment

EIS Environmental Impact Statement

EPA Environmental Protection Agency

FERC Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

FWS Fish and Wildlife Service

IPaC Information, Planning and Conservation System

NEPA National Environmental Policy Act

NHPA National Historic Preservation Act

NMFS National Marine Fisheries Service

NPDES National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System

PHMSA Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration

This is a work of the U.S. government and is not subject to copyright protection in the 

United States. The published product may be reproduced and distributed in its entirety 

without further permission from GAO. However, because this work may contain 

copyrighted images or other material, permission from the copyright holder may be 

necessary if you wish to reproduce this material separately.
Page 1 GAO-13-221 Pipeline Permitting

United States Government Accountability Office

Washington, DC 20548

February 15, 2013

The Honorable John D. Rockefeller IV

Chairman

The Honorable John Thune

Ranking Member

Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation

United States Senate

The Honorable Fred Upton

Chairman

The Honorable Henry Waxman

Ranking Member

Committee on Energy and Commerce

House of Representatives

The Honorable Bill Shuster 

Chairman

The Honorable Nick J. Rahall

Ranking Member

Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure

House of Representatives

In recent years, U.S. natural gas production from unconventional sources, 

including shale, has increased because of technological advances.

According to the Department of Energy’s Energy Information 

Administration, gas production from unconventional sources is projected 

to rise by 35 percent through 2030. This increase in production has 

required, and will continue to require, steady additions to the pipeline 

system for moving natural gas from the production fields to gas 

consumers. According to a 2011 Department of Energy report, the recent 

substantial growth in domestic natural gas production from shale has 

already brought lower natural gas prices, more domestic jobs, and the 

prospect of enhanced national energy security.1

 

1

Department of Energy, Secretary of Energy Advisory Board, Shale Gas Production 

Subcommittee 90-Day Report (Washington, D.C.: 2011).

 
 

Page 2 GAO-13-221 Pipeline Permitting

However, natural gas production and pipelines also raise concerns about 

potential environmental and public health effects. Pipelines are typically 

buried underground. Their construction requires clearing and maintaining 

rights-of-way, which may result in the loss of habitat for plants and 

wildlife, disturb nesting birds, and endanger cultural and historic 

resources. The disturbance may occur on federal, state, tribal, or private 

lands. Soil disturbance during construction can also increase the risks of 

erosion and sedimentation if the pipelines are not carefully designed and 

installed. Further, accidental or routine releases of natural gas may result 

in contamination of surface water and ground water, including 

contamination of drinking water supplies. In addition to the pipelines 

themselves, compressor stations pressurize the natural gas at various 

points to ensure a continuous and regulated flow to help transport natural 

gas from one location to another. Compressor stations may emit 

methane, ethane, benzene, and other gases, which may pollute the air, 

and the stations may also cause noise pollution.

Under Section 7 of the Natural Gas Act, the Federal Energy Regulatory 

Commission (FERC) is the federal agency that is charged with evaluating 

whether the route, as proposed by a company for an interstate natural 

gas pipeline project (i.e., typically pipelines that cross state boundaries), 

should be approved. FERC also coordinates with a variety of federal, 

state, and local agencies—those that are responsible for protecting 

natural, historic, or cultural resources—in order to complete an 

environmental review of proposed interstate natural gas pipelines. The 

number of federal, state, and local stakeholders and regulations that may 

be involved in the interstate permitting process depends on where the 

pipeline is being constructed. FERC is not involved in authorizing the 

construction and operation of intrastate pipelines (i.e., pipelines that 

operate entirely within one state).

Section 27 of the Pipeline Safety, Regulatory Certainty, and Job Creation 

Act of 2011 directs GAO to conduct a comprehensive study on the 

process for obtaining federal and state permits for projects to construct 

pipeline facilities and report on the results of the study 1 year after the 

enactment of the act.2

 

2

Pub. L. No. 112-90, §27, 125 Stat. 1904, 1920 (2012).

In response to the mandate, we determined (1) the 

processes necessary for pipeline companies to acquire permits to 

construct interstate and intrastate natural gas pipelines; (2) information 
 

Page 3 GAO-13-221 Pipeline Permitting

available on the time frames associated with the natural gas pipeline 

permitting process; and (3) stakeholder-identified management practices, 

if any, that may improve the permitting process. For purposes of this 

report, we consider the permitting process to involve steps companies 

need to take to obtain a permit, authorization, certificate, or approval from 

a federal, state, or local entity in order to construct a natural gas pipeline.

To describe the processes pipeline companies need to follow to obtain 

permits for interstate and intrastate natural gas pipeline construction, we 

obtained and analyzed relevant laws, regulations, guidance, and other 

federal and state documents. To collect additional information available 

on the permitting process as well as factors affecting time frames and 

stakeholder-identified management practices, we interviewed 

stakeholders, including federal officials from FERC and federal resource 

agencies, including the Army Corps of Engineers (Corps),3

We conducted this performance audit from May 2012 to February 2013 in 

accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards. 

Those standards require that we plan and perform the audit to obtain 

sufficient, appropriate evidence to provide a reasonable basis for our 

findings and conclusions based on our audit objectives. We believe that 

the 

Departments of Agriculture and of the Interior, and the Environmental 

Protection Agency (EPA); representatives of industry associations, 

companies, and public interest organizations; and officials from state 

agencies from a nonprobability sample of 11 states. These 11 states are 

California, Colorado, Delaware, Florida, New York, North Dakota, 

Oklahoma, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Texas, and Vermont. We 

selected these states using several criteria, including the size of a 

pipeline network and population density. Because it is a nonprobability 

sample, the information we obtained from these states is not 

generalizable to all states but provides illustrative information. To identify 

the information available on the time frames associated with the natural 

gas pipeline permitting process, we interviewed federal officials and 

representatives from industry associations and public interest groups, and 

reviewed public records. A more detailed description of our objectives, 

scope, and methodology is presented in appendix I.

 

3

We spoke with Corps regulatory officials in headquarters and five district offices:

Baltimore, Fort Worth, Jacksonville, Philadelphia, and Sacramento.
 

Page 4 GAO-13-221 Pipeline Permitting

the evidence obtained provides a reasonable basis for our findings and 

conclusions based on our audit objectives.

This background discusses (1) the distribution network for natural gas 

pipelines, (2) the key federal environmental laws that may be involved in 

the permitting process for these pipelines, and (3) the key stakeholders 

that may be involved in the permitting process.

Within the nationwide system of roughly 2.6 million miles of interstate and 

intrastate natural gas pipelines, the following are the main types of 

pipelines transporting natural gas:

• Gathering pipelines. Gas gathering pipelines collect natural gas from 

production areas. These pipelines typically transport the gas to 

processing facilities, which in turn refine and send the products to 

transmission pipelines. The gas gathering pipelines tend to be located 

in rural areas but can also be located in urban areas. The Department 

of Transportation’s Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety 

Administration (PHMSA)4

• Transmission pipelines. Transmission pipelines carry natural gas, 

sometimes across hundreds of miles, to communities and largevolume users (e.g., factories). These transmission pipelines have 

compressor stations located periodically along the pipeline to maintain 

pressure.

estimates that there are 200,000 miles of 

gas gathering pipelines in the United States.

5

• Distribution pipelines. Gas distribution pipelines transport natural gas 

to residential, commercial, and industrial customers, splitting off from 

PHMSA estimates there are more than 400,000 miles of 

interstate and intrastate transmission pipelines in the United States.

 

4

PHMSA is responsible for developing and enforcing regulations for the safe, reliable, and 

environmentally sound operation of the United States’ pipeline transportation system. 

5

A compressor station is a facility that helps the transportation process of natural gas from 

one location to another. Natural gas, while being transported through a gas pipeline, 

needs to be constantly pressurized in certain distance intervals. The compressor station 

compresses the natural gas, thereby providing energy to move the gas through the 

pipeline. The gas in compressor stations is normally pressurized by special turbines, 

motors, and engines. Pipeline companies install compressor stations along a pipeline 

route, typically every 40 to 100 miles.

Background 

Distribution Network for 

Natural Gas Pipelines
 

Page 5 GAO-13-221 Pipeline Permitting

transmission pipelines. PHMSA estimates that there are roughly 2 

million miles of distribution pipelines, most of which are intrastate 

pipelines, in the United States. These pipelines are considered 

outside of FERC’s jurisdictional responsibilities.

Several federal environmental laws and agencies may come into play in 

the permitting process for natural gas pipelines, depending on the 

proposed route for the pipeline. The principal laws involved include the 

National Environmental Policy Act, the Clean Water Act, the Endangered 

Species Act, and the National Historic Preservation Act.6

National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA).7

• Environmental impact statement (EIS). This type of analysis is 

required for proposed projects that a federal agency determines will 

have a significant effect on the environment. In broad terms, the EIS 

process begins when the lead federal agency publishes a Notice of 

Under NEPA, federal 

agencies must assess the effects of major federal actions—those they 

propose to fund, carry out, or permit—that affect the environment. This 

requirement applies to interstate pipelines and intrastate pipelines that 

must have federal authorizations. NEPA has two principal purposes: (1) 

to ensure that an agency carefully considers detailed information 

concerning environmental impacts, including reasonable alternatives to 

the proposed project, and (2) to ensure that this information will be made 

available to the public. NEPA generally requires federal agencies to 

prepare analyses showing the extent of a project’s environmental 

impacts. Federal actions in which more than one federal agency is 

involved entail the designation of a “lead agency” and, in some cases, 

“cooperating agencies.” The lead agency is the federal agency that takes 

responsibility for preparing NEPA analyses. The lead agency consults 

with cooperating agencies that have jurisdiction by law or special 

expertise regarding any environmental impact involved in a proposed 

project. Under NEPA, the lead agencies—FERC for interstate pipelines—

will determine which of the following three types of analyses are needed:

 

6

In addition to the laws described in this section, other laws govern certain aspects of 

some pipeline construction projects, such as the Clean Air Act, the Migratory Bird Treaty 

Act, the Safe Drinking Water Act, and the Wilderness Act. 

7

Pub. L. No. 91-190, 83 Stat. 852 (1970), codified as amended at 42 U.S.C. §§ 4321-4347 

(2011).

Federal Environmental 

Laws That May Be 

Involved in the Pipeline 

Permitting Process
 

Page 6 GAO-13-221 Pipeline Permitting

Intent in the Federal Register. The Notice of Intent acts as the formal 

announcement of the project to the public and interested federal, 

state, tribal, and local agencies. The lead agency is then required to 

determine the scope of the project. During this scoping process, the 

lead agency consults with resource agencies—such as the Corps or 

the Department of the Interior’s Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS)—to 

identify issues and alternatives to be analyzed in the EIS and allocate 

assignments for assistance in preparing the EIS. The lead agency will 

also identify other environmental review and consultation 

requirements under state, tribal, or local laws. Next, the lead agency 

prepares a draft EIS and solicits comments from the public; 

incorporates these comments into a final EIS; and issues a Record of 

Decision. Among other things, the Record of Decision—which is the 

final step for agencies in the EIS process—identifies (1) the decision 

made; (2) the alternatives considered during the development of the 

EIS, including the environmentally preferred alternative; and (3) plans 

to mitigate environmental impacts.

• Environmental assessment (EA). The lead agency prepares an EA 

when it is not clear whether a proposed project will have significant 

environmental impacts. An EA is intended to be a concise analysis 

that, among other things, briefly provides sufficient evidence and 

analysis for determining whether to prepare an EIS. If during the 

development of an EA, the lead agency determines that the proposed 

project will cause significant environmental impacts, the lead agency 

will stop producing the EA and, instead, produce an EIS. However, an 

EA typically results in a finding of no significant impact, and this 

finding is reported in a document that presents the reasons for the 

agency’s conclusion that no significant environmental impacts will 

occur when the proposed project is implemented. This finding is 

typically based on the use of mitigation measures.

• Categorical exclusion. The proposed pipeline project is classified as a 

categorical exclusion if a federal agency determines that the project 

falls within a category of activities that has already been determined to 

have no significant environmental impact. Under a categorical 

exclusion, the agency generally does not need to prepare an EIS or 

EA.

NEPA regulations require federal agencies to make diligent efforts to 

involve the public in the preparation and implementation of NEPA

documents. Under these regulations, agencies must provide a public 

comment period for a draft EIS; there is no corresponding requirement for 

an EA, but agencies may provide a public comment period.
 

Page 7 GAO-13-221 Pipeline Permitting

Clean Water Act.8

Endangered Species Act.

Pipeline projects may also be subject to many 

requirements of the Clean Water Act, one goal of which is to eliminate the 

addition of pollutants to waters of the United States. Section 404 of the 

Clean Water Act requires, among other things, that projects involving the 

discharge of dredged or fill material into waters of the United States must 

obtain a permit; this permit is typically issued by the Corps. Gas pipelines 

may involve such discharges when, for example, they are constructed 

within a riverbed, stream, or wetland. Additionally, pipeline construction 

may be subject to Section 402 of the Clean Water Act, which prohibits the 

discharge of pollutants into waters of the United States without a National 

Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit. Pipeline 

construction is also subject to Section 401 of the Clean Water Act, which 

requires anyone seeking a permit for a project that may affect water 

quality to seek approval from the relevant state water quality agency.

9

 

8

Federal Water Pollution Control Act Amendments of 1972, Pub. L. No. 92-500, 86 Stat. 

816 (1972), codified as further amended at 33 U.S.C. §§ 1251-1387, and generally 

referred to as the Clean Water Act.

The Endangered Species Act requires federal 

agencies to ensure that any action they authorize, fund, or carry out is not 

likely to jeopardize the continued existence of a species listed as 

threatened or endangered under the act, or destroy or adversely modify 

its critical habitat. To fulfill this responsibility, the agencies must, under 

some circumstances, formally consult with FWS or the Department of 

Commerce’s National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) when the actions 

they authorize may affect listed species or designated critical habitat. 

Formal consultations generally result in the issuance of biological 

opinions by FWS or NMFS. The biological opinions contain a detailed 

discussion of the effects of the action on listed species or critical habitat 

and FWS’s and NMFS’s opinions on whether the pipeline company has 

ensured that its action is not likely to jeopardize the continued existence 

of the species or adversely modify critical habitat. In cases where a 

pipeline project as proposed is likely to either jeopardize the species or 

cause the destruction or adverse modification of its critical habitat, the 

opinions are to provide a “reasonable and prudent alternative” to avoid 

jeopardy or adverse modification that FWS or NMFS believes the pipeline 

company could take in implementing the action.

9

Pub. L. 93-205, 87 Stat. 884 (1973), codified at 16 U.S.C. §§ 1531-1544 (2011).
 

Page 8 GAO-13-221 Pipeline Permitting

National Historic Preservation Act.10

Rivers and Harbors Act of 1899.

Section 106 of the National Historic 

Preservation Act (NHPA) requires federal agencies to take into account 

the project’s effect on any historic site, building, structure, or other object 

that is listed on the National Register of Historic Places. The Advisory 

Council on Historic Preservation oversees implementation of the Section 

106 NHPA authority. In general, the advisory council delegates much of 

its authority under NHPA to state historic preservation offices. These 

offices identify historic properties and assess and resolve adverse effects 

on them under NHPA.

11 Under Section 10 of the Rivers and 

Harbors Act of 1899, projects such as pipelines that could affect 

navigable waters of the United States must receive authorization from the 

Corps. Specifically, the Corps regulates any work or structures in, over, or 

under navigable waters or any work that may affect the course, location, 

or condition of those waters.

A wide range of stakeholders can be involved in the interstate and 

intrastate natural gas pipeline permitting processes, from federal, state, 

and local agencies with varying missions and responsibilities, to public 

interest groups, tribes, and private citizens.

• Federal siting agency. In addition to evaluating whether a proposed 

interstate natural gas pipeline route should be approved, FERC is the 

lead agency in coordinating NEPA environmental reviews for a 

project.12

 

10Pub. L. No. 89-665 (1966), codified as amended at 16 U.S.C. §§ 470 to 470x-6.

In 2002, FERC and nine other federal agencies signed an 

interagency agreement for early coordination of required 

environmental and historic preservation reviews in an effort to 

11Pub. L. No. 69-560, 44 Stat. 1010; Pub. L. No. 71-520, 46 Stat. 918. 

12A lead agency must supervise the preparation of an environmental analysis if more than 

one federal agency either (1) proposes or is involved in the same action or (2) is involved 

in a group of actions directly related to each other because of their functional 

interdependence or geographical proximity. 40 C.F.R. § 1501.5(a).

Stakeholders That May Be 

Involved in the Pipeline 

Permitting Process
 

Page 9 GAO-13-221 Pipeline Permitting

facilitate the timely development of pipeline projects.13

• Federal resource agencies. Federal resource agencies are 

responsible for managing and protecting natural and cultural 

resources such as wetlands, forests, wildlife, and historic properties. 

Virtually all applications for pipeline projects require some level of 

coordination with one or more of the following federal agencies, as 

well as others, to satisfy requirements for environmental review:

FERC 

approves the construction of interstate pipelines by issuing a 

certificate of public convenience and necessity, which includes 

conditions that the pipeline company receive all required federal 

authorizations before beginning construction, if it has not already done 

so. FERC does not become involved in the permitting process for 

intrastate pipelines.

• The Advisory Council on Historic Preservation seeks to promote 

the preservation, enhancement, and sustainable use of the 

nation’s historic resources. For proposed natural gas pipeline 

projects, the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation reviews 

and provides comments on those pipeline projects that may affect 

properties listed or eligible to be listed on the National Register of 

Historic Places pursuant to the NHPA. 

• The Bureau of Indian Affairs is responsible for, among other 

things, approving rights of way across lands held in trust for an 

Indian or Indian tribe. In addition, the Bureau of Indian Affairs must 

consult and coordinate with any affected tribe.

• The Bureau of Land Management (BLM) is principally responsible 

for issuing right-of-way permits authorizing natural gas pipelines to 

 

13Agencies included in the Interagency Agreement on Early Coordination of Required 

Environmental and Historic Preservation Reviews Conducted in Conjunction with the 

Issuance of Authorizations to Construct and Operate Interstate Natural Gas Pipelines 

Certificated by the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission are the Departments of the 

Army, Agriculture, Commerce, Energy, the Interior, and Transportation; the Advisory 

Council on Historic Preservation; EPA; and the White House Council on Environmental 

Quality.
 

Page 10 GAO-13-221 Pipeline Permitting

cross federal lands.14

• The Corps has the authority to issue permits for the discharge of 

dredged or fill material into waters of the United States under 

Section 404 of the Clean Water Act. The Corps also has 

jurisdiction over structures or work in navigable waters of the 

United States under Section 10 of the Rivers and Harbors Act. If 

any activity could affect a federal project, such as a levee, dam, or 

navigation channel, permission from the Corps is required in 

accordance with Section 14 of the Rivers and Harbors Act of 

1899.

When pipelines cross the lands of another 

federal agency, such as National Forest System lands, as well as 

BLM lands, BLM is responsible for issuing an authorization.

• EPA is responsible for administering a wide variety of 

environmental laws. EPA’s responsibilities for the pipeline 

permitting process include commenting on EISs under the Clean 

Air Act; it also has the authority to participate in the Section 404 

permit process.

• FWS is generally responsible for implementing the Endangered 

Species Act, among other laws, for freshwater and terrestrial 

species that may be affected by a pipeline construction project.

• The Forest Service is responsible for managing 193 million acres 

of National Forest System lands, through which many thousands 

of miles of natural gas pipelines cross. If a proposed pipeline 

crosses more than one federal agency’s lands, BLM issues a 

right-of-way permit.15

 

14BLM has authority to issue these permits under Section 28 of the Mineral Leasing Act of 

1920, as amended, except for lands in the National Park System, lands held in trust for an 

Indian or Indian tribe, and lands on the Outer Continental Shelf. BLM is also not 

authorized to issue permits directly for access on National Wildlife Refuges without the 

approval of FWS.

In cases where the pipeline only crosses 

15Issuance of a BLM right-of-way permit on National Forest System lands is subject to the 

Forest Service’s concurrence and inclusion of necessary terms and conditions to ensure 

the permit is consistent with National Forest System purposes.
 

Page 11 GAO-13-221 Pipeline Permitting

National Forest System lands, the Forest Service issues a specialuse authorization.16

• NMFS implements, among other things, the Marine Mammal 

Protection Act and the Endangered Species Act for most marine 

species and anadromous fish (i.e., fish that spend portions of their 

life cycle in both fresh and salt water).

• State resource agencies. State-level agencies are generally 

responsible for managing and protecting a state’s natural and cultural 

resources. State resource agencies, such as state environmental or 

water quality agencies, as is the case with their federal counterparts, 

participate in and review assessments of environmental impacts in 

accordance with their responsibilities under federal or state laws. In 

some cases, federal agencies have delegated authority to state 

resource agencies for carrying out federal laws. Additionally, state 

historic preservation offices advise and consult with federal and other 

state agencies to identify historic properties and assess and resolve 

adverse effects to those properties under the NHPA. 

• Tribal governments. As part of the planning and review process for 

pipeline projects, federal agencies engage in government-togovernment consultation between American Indian Tribes and Alaska 

Native Corporations. Consultation is a deliberative process that aims 

to create effective collaboration and informed federal decision making. 

Tribal consultations can be a factor in the overall pipeline project 

schedule.

• Local governments. Local governments involved in natural gas 

pipeline projects may include counties or municipalities that are 

empowered by state law or constitution to carry out provisions to 

protect the environment or safety of local citizens. This may include 

requiring soil and erosion plans or zoning laws.

• Public interest groups. Public interest groups, such as Earthjustice, 

Delaware Riverkeeper, and the Pipeline Safety Trust, advocate for a 

number of issues, including the environment and public safety. They 

may comment on a proposed pipeline project during, for example, the 

 

16Most pipelines crossing National Forest System lands are permitted by a BLM-issued 

right-of-way grant, pursuant to the authority granted to the Secretary of the Interior in 

Section 28 of the Mineral Leasing Act.
 

Page 12 GAO-13-221 Pipeline Permitting

NEPA process or any state processes that include public comment 

periods.

• Private citizens. Private citizens can provide comments and opinions 

in venues like public hearings. Like public interest groups, private 

citizens may comment on a proposed pipeline project during, for 

example, the NEPA process or any state processes that include 

public comment periods.

Both the interstate and intrastate pipeline permitting processes are 

complex in that they can involve multiple federal, state, and local 

agencies, as well as public interest groups and citizens, and include 

multiple steps. The interstate permitting process involves three key 

phases: a voluntary pre-filing phase, an application phase, and a postauthorization phase with multiple steps. According to stakeholders we 

spoke with, the interstate process is consistent because FERC acts as a 

lead agency in coordinating multiple stakeholders. The intrastate process 

can also include multiple stakeholders and steps. However, those 

stakeholders and steps vary from state to state, and most states do not 

have a lead agency coordinating the process.

We identified three key phases in the interstate permitting process for 

natural gas pipelines: pre-filing, application, and post-authorization. 

During these phases, federal, state, and local agencies, as well as public 

interest groups and citizens, may play a role in approving or commenting 

on the application for a permit to construct interstate pipelines. According 

to some industry representatives we spoke with, the interstate permitting 

process can be time-consuming, depending on the size and complexity of 

a proposed project, but it is consistent because FERC, as the lead 

agency, assists in coordinating with other stakeholders on the NEPA 

environmental analysis.

In 2002, FERC established a pre-filing phase to facilitate and expedite the 

review of natural gas pipeline projects through early coordination with 

FERC and cooperating agencies (see fig. 1). The intent of this phase is to 

involve stakeholders sooner so that potential issues can be identified and 

resolved earlier, thereby taking less time overall. Use of this phase is 

voluntary, and FERC must approve a company’s request for pre-filing. 

For those projects that are less complex, such as those that do not 

involve federal lands, endangered species, or crossings of waters of the 

The Interstate and 

Intrastate Pipeline 

Permitting Processes 

Can be Complex, with 

Multiple Stakeholders 

and Steps

The Interstate Permitting 

Process Involves Three 

Phases, and Stakeholders 

Report It Is Consistent 

because It Has a Lead 

Agency

Pre-filing Phase
 

Page 13 GAO-13-221 Pipeline Permitting

United States, applicants may choose not to use the pre-filing phase. 

According to FERC officials, in 2012, 67 percent of applicants for major 

interstate pipeline construction projects chose to use this phase.17

Figure 1: FERC’s Typical Steps in the Pre-filing Phase of the Natural Gas Pipeline 

Permitting Process

In the 

pre-filing phase, FERC and the applicant focus on gathering the 

necessary information for the environmental analysis, which may involve 

numerous federal, state, and local agencies and is typically the most 

complex and time-consuming step of the permitting process.

Once FERC approves a company’s request to use the pre-filing phase for 

a project, agency staff notify other potential cooperating agencies that 

FERC has approved the use of the pre-filing phase and hold a planning or 

information meeting with the applicant and the agencies to discuss land 

and resource issues and concerns. FERC and the agencies also discuss 

the agencies’ ability to commit to an environmental review schedule. 

FERC will then work with the applicant and those agencies that are to 

have a role in the permitting process to initiate the NEPA scoping 

process—that is, the process of defining and refining the scope of an EIS 

or EA and the alternatives to be investigated—and begin the 

environmental analysis.

 

17For the purpose of environmental review, a major project is one where FERC has 

determined that the EIS or EA will be issued for public comment.
 

Page 14 GAO-13-221 Pipeline Permitting

Applicants are to hold “open house” meetings in the vicinity of the 

proposed project to share information about the project with the public.

FERC staff often attends these meetings to answer any questions about 

the FERC permitting process and to invite the public to participate in the 

process at future dates. According to FERC’s website, applicants may 

incorporate proposed mitigation measures into the project design from 

comments received during these meetings. After these meetings, FERC 

will issue a Notice of Intent in the Federal Register for the preparation of 

an EA or EIS and seek additional public comments. FERC staff may also 

hold public scoping meetings for major projects that require an EIS or EA.

Information given by the public during scoping meetings can help the 

company prepare environmental mitigation measures.

According to industry representatives we spoke with, FERC’s pre-filing 

process was helpful at resolving potential problems earlier in the process, 

but other stakeholders said the pre-filing process is confusing and may 

limit public input. For example, one natural gas industry representative 

noted that the pre-filing phase has made the overall process less 

complicated. Another stated that it has resolved potential project 

“derailers,” such as issues with routing the pipeline through areas with 

endangered species, and has saved time for obtaining a permit. In 

addition, another industry representative said that early identification of 

stakeholders also increases coverage of potential resource impact issues 

so that appropriate surveys, mitigation practices, coordination with local 

and state requirements, and planning for habitat management or 

conservation can be coordinated with proposed project construction 

timelines. On the other hand, some state officials and representatives of 

public interest groups were more skeptical of the pre-filing phase. One 

representative of an environmental group said the public is unaware of 

the pre-filing phase and suggested that FERC and other stakeholders 

specifically reach out to environmental groups during the pre-filing phase 

if they want to resolve potential issues early in the process. However, 

another representative from an environmental group commended FERC 

for establishing an e-mail notification system that enables the public to 

sign up for e-mails on the progress of a specific project.

Once pre-filing activities are completed or, if the applicant chooses to 

forgo the pre-filing phase, the applicant submits an application for a 

certificate of public convenience and necessity to FERC (see fig. 2 for 

steps in the application phase). FERC issues a Notice of Application, 

which includes the following: the unique number assigned to the project; 

the ways in which stakeholders, including the public, can become 

involved in the proceedings; and the methods for filing comments with 

Application Phase
 

Page 15 GAO-13-221 Pipeline Permitting

FERC. There are several factors taken into account when FERC 

establishes a schedule for the environmental review, including the scope 

and complexity of the project, the requirements of any cooperating 

agencies, and the requested time frame of the applicant. Schedules may 

be adjusted if new concerns are identified, new information is introduced, 

or the number of comments received is greater than anticipated. 

However, FERC has no authority to enforce that schedule with 

cooperating agencies.
 

Page 16 GAO-13-221 Pipeline Permitting

Figure 2: FERC’s Typical Steps in the Application Phase of the Natural Gas Pipeline 

Permitting Process

a

FERC then analyzes the information in the application and begins the 

scoping process for those proposed projects that did not use the pre-filing 

phase or continues the scoping process for those proposed projects that 

did use the pre-filing phase. If a company did not use the pre-filing phase, 

These steps have already taken place for those natural gas pipeline projects that began the 

permitting process with the pre-filing phase.
 

Page 17 GAO-13-221 Pipeline Permitting

FERC will begin the scoping process and consult with cooperating 

agencies to gather information. Next, FERC will issue a Notice of Intent to 

prepare either an EA or EIS. FERC, along with any cooperating agencies, 

will prepare either an EA or a draft EIS, depending on the potential 

environmental effects of the project. Cooperating agencies are 

responsible for assisting FERC in the preparation of the EA or EIS for 

those issues that fall within their jurisdiction. For example, if a project 

impacts waters of the United States, the Corps is likely to participate in 

the development of the EA or EIS because it is responsible for the 

regulation of activities in jurisdictional waters of the United States and 

would need to evaluate proposed impacts to those waters to inform a 

permit decision pursuant to its authorities under Section 404 of the Clean 

Water Act and/or Section 10 of the Rivers and Harbors Act of 1899. The 

environmental analysis incorporates the necessary information from all 

federal agencies in one document.

While FERC may issue the certificate of public convenience and 

necessity before all federal permits, certificates, or authorizations are 

complete, it will not grant the authority to construct a pipeline without 

these federal authorizations. Pipeline companies must coordinate with the 

relevant agencies to ensure that these permits, certifications, and 

authorizations are completed. This may happen during the application 

phase or after FERC issues its certificate.

Some states have developed written agreements with federal agencies 

that establish a process for carrying out their roles in consultation, review, 

and compliance with one or more federal laws. In some cases, state 

agencies have received the authority from federal agencies to implement 

federal laws and regulations. For example, the Clean Air Act gives EPA 

the authority to limit emissions of air pollutants, such as nitrogen oxides 

and methane, that result from constructing and operating natural gas 

compressor stations and pipelines. Such emission limits are established 

through a preconstruction permit issued by EPA, or, in some cases, by a 

state or local agency that has received authority from EPA to issue Clean 

Air Act permits in its jurisdiction. According to EPA, at least 75 percent of 

preconstruction permits are issued by state and local agencies, and 

EPA’s regional offices issue the remaining preconstruction permits. In 

areas where the state agency issues the clean air permits under the rules 

of their state implementation plan, EPA provides minimal oversight 

because the state is the permitting authority and therefore has primacy 

over decision making. In addition, state agencies may have delegated 

authority to process and issue federal Water Quality Certifications, 
 

Page 18 GAO-13-221 Pipeline Permitting

required under Section 401 of the Clean Water Act, and Consistency 

Concurrences, under the Coastal Zone Management Act.18

Environmental permits issued by federal agencies can also vary by state 

or by region. For example, the Corps issues two types of permits to 

authorize activities under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act and Section 

10 of the Rivers and Harbors Act of 1899: (1) individual permits, and (2) 

general permits. The type of permit used depends on the type and extent 

of proposed impacts on aquatic resources and whether a general permit 

is available to authorize such impacts. The Corps issues individual 

permits for specific projects that may have more than minimal impacts on 

aquatic resources, either individually or cumulatively, or are not otherwise 

authorized by general permits. The Corps issues general permits for

activities resulting in no more than minimal adverse effects on the aquatic 

environment. The following three types of general permits are used for 

natural gas pipeline construction projects that require the discharge of 

dredged or fill material into waters of the United States and/or work or 

structures affecting the course, location, or condition of navigable waters: 

• Nationwide permit. This type of general permit is intended to 

streamline and expedite the evaluation and approval process

throughout the nation for certain types of activities that have only 

minimal impacts, both individually and cumulatively, on the aquatic 

environment. Activities that meet the terms and conditions of this type 

of permit, such as natural gas pipeline construction projects, are 

already authorized by the Corps. The Corps district verifies that the 

project meets the conditions outlined in the applicable nationwide 

permit. Corps headquarters, rather than one of the 38 district offices, 

issues these permits. However, one of the Corps’ eight division offices 

may add regional conditions to these permits in order to protect local 

aquatic ecosystems or to minimize adverse effects on ecologically 

critical areas or other valuable resources. 

• Regional general permits. This type of permit authorizes activities that 

commonly occur in a particular region and that are expected to have a

 

18Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972, Pub. L. No. 92-583 (1972), as amended and 

codified at 16 U.S.C. §§ 1451-1466, § 1456(c) (2010). The act’s purpose is to promote 

comprehensive and coordinated planning for coastal zone development and preservation 

between states and the federal government. Conservation Law Foundation v. Watt, 560 

F.Supp. 561, 574 (D. Mass. 1983).
 

Page 19 GAO-13-221 Pipeline Permitting

minimal impact on waters of the United States, but that do not warrant 

national authorization. Corps district offices issue this type of permit.

• Programmatic general permits. This type of general permit is 

established in those states or localities where there is a similar 

existing state, local, or other federal agency regulatory program. It is 

designed to avoid regulatory duplication. These types of permits may 

allow activities, including work in waters of the United States 

associated with pipeline projects, to have greater impact on waters 

than the nationwide general permits, provided there is still no more 

than minimal adverse effect on the environment. The programmatic 

general permit will identify those impacts that may be verified by the 

state or other entity with no review by the Corps, as well as any

activities that may require notification to the Corps before verification 

is provided. Once the programmatic general permit is issued, the state 

or local agencies review proposed projects to verify that the proposed 

activities meet the terms and conditions of the permit, coordinating 

with the Corps’ district offices as necessary. Corps district offices 

receive annual reports from state and local agencies regarding the 

use of the programmatic general permits. Districts also retain the 

right to review any proposed project they determine may not meet the 

terms and conditions of the programmatic general permit.

Most Corps districts primarily use nationwide permits to authorize work in 

waters of the United States in association with pipeline construction 

activities. Eight districts have developed regional general permits for 

certain activities, that may include pipeline construction, and six districts 

have developed state programmatic general permits. According to a 

Corps headquarters official, Corps districts may use different permitting 

mechanisms in different states to evaluate work in waters of the United 

States in association with pipeline projects. The regulations allow for this 

flexibility to account for regional differences in the aquatic environment, 

endangered species, historic sites, state regulations, or other factors. For 

example:

• In Pennsylvania, Corps district offices will generally rely on the 

Pennsylvania State Programmatic General Permit-4, under which the 

Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection verifies certain

impacts that may occur in waters of the United States from the 
 

Page 20 GAO-13-221 Pipeline Permitting

construction of some pipelines if the project meets certain criteria.19

• Officials in the Corps’ Fort Worth district office said they typically use 

a nationwide permit to authorize work in waters of the United States in 

association with pipeline construction. Officials said they have not 

considered the use of a programmatic general permit because there 

are no similar permitting programs or authorizations required by the 

state of Texas.

According to Corps district officials, the Corps does not use a 

nationwide permit for these types of impacts because doing so would 

duplicate a similar state permit.

• In Florida, Corps district officials issue both nationwide permits and 

regional general permits for work in waters of the United States in 

association with pipeline construction. Headquarters officials said the 

use of a programmatic general permit has not been considered

because state regulatory processes are not similar enough to develop 

such a permit.

In addition to coordinating with federal agencies on the environmental 

analysis, FERC may work with state resource agencies and local 

governments during the permitting of a natural gas pipeline. For example, 

an interstate natural gas pipeline project that runs through Pennsylvania 

would require several federal, state, and local permits, licenses, 

approvals, and certifications, as shown in table 1. However, some state 

and local actions are preempted—that is, they are superseded or 

overridden by federal law—because the actions conflict with federal law.

For example, state certificates of necessity and convenience, which 

otherwise may be issued by state public utility commissions or other state 

agencies, are preempted because FERC’s certificate of public 

convenience and necessity supersedes the state’s. 

 

19The Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection verifies certain activities 

under the Pennsylvania State Programmatic General Permit-4, which are identified as 

Category 1 and 2 in the permit, while the Corps verifies those activities that fall into 

Category 3. Applications are sent to the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental 

Protection, which uses a screening tool to determine a project’s category level. Under the 

Pennsylvania State Programmatic General Permit-4, the Corps will review the project if 

the impacts to waters of the United States in association with an overall linear project 

exceed 1 acre of wetlands or 250 linear feet of stream. For purposes of determining 

whether a Corps review is required, total impacts associated with an overall linear project 

are determined by adding together impacts to waters of the United States at single and 

complete crossings that occur at separate and distant locations. 
 

Page 21 GAO-13-221 Pipeline Permitting

Table 1. Some of the Federal, State, and Local Permits That May Be Required for a Natural Gas Pipeline Project in 

Pennsylvania

Permit, license, approval, or certification Administering agency

Federal

Certificate of Public Convenience and Necessity FERC

Section 404 General Permit Corps

Section 7 Threatened and Endangered Species Clearance FWS

State

401 Water Quality Certification Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection

Water Obstruction and Encroachment Permits

National Pollutant Discharge Eliminations System (NPDES)—

Hydrostatic Test Water Discharge General Permit (PAG-10) or 

Individual Permit

NPDES Individual Permit for Construction Activities

Concurrence of Exemption from Plan Approval 

Submerged Land License Agreement

Chapter 110 Water Withdrawal and Use Registration

Highway Occupancy Permit Pennsylvania Department of Transportation

Stream Crossings consultation Pennsylvania Fish and Boat Commission

Clearance (Rare Species) Pennsylvania Department of Natural Resources

Clearance (Cultural Resources) Pennsylvania Historical and Museum Commission

Water Allocation Permit Susquehanna River Basin Commission

Local 

Erosion and Sedimentation Control Plan Review County Conservation District

Source: FERC.

The process differs slightly depending on whether an EA or EIS is 

prepared, but in either case, FERC, acting as the lead agency, issues 

either a draft EIS or EA, and obtains public comments on the 

environmental analysis that was completed. FERC will respond to those 

comments, and issue its order either approving or denying the certificate 

of public convenience and necessity.20

 

20FERC, or any lead agency, is required to assess and consider comments and respond 

in one or more of the following ways: (1) modify proposed alternatives, including the 

proposed action; (2) develop and evaluate alternatives not previously considered; (3) 

supplement, improve, or modify its analyses; (4) make factual corrections; or (5) explain 

why the comments do not warrant further response from the lead agency, citing the 

sources, authorities, or reasons that support the agency’s position and, if appropriate, 

indicate circumstances that would trigger agency reappraisal or further response.

According to representatives of 
 

Page 22 GAO-13-221 Pipeline Permitting

one environmental group we spoke with, the public is not given sufficient 

time to intervene in the pipeline permitting process and often must hire 

attorneys to help them raise a motion with the agency because the 

process is complicated. According to representatives from several interest 

groups we spoke with, citizens are often unable to take these additional 

steps. However, FERC officials said that, while the agency establishes a 

deadline for timely motions to intervene, a motion to intervene can still be 

considered once the deadline has passed. Officials also said that an 

entity would be well-advised to file a motion to intervene as soon as 

possible. State officials we spoke with said that citizens are not well 

informed of the complicated interstate pipeline permitting process.

Once FERC has issued a certificate of public convenience and necessity 

or denied an application, the applicant or the party to the proceeding can 

request that FERC rehear the case or take FERC to court over the 

outcome of the case. Otherwise, in order to proceed, the pipeline 

company must file an implementation plan with FERC including, but not 

limited to, how the company will implement any environmental mitigation 

actions identified in the environmental analysis, the number of 

environmental inspectors the company will assign to the project to ensure 

that mitigation measures are implemented, and procedures the company 

will follow if noncompliance occurs. FERC must give written authorization 

before construction can begin. Following that authorization, the pipeline 

company must file weekly status reports with FERC documenting 

inspection and compliance until all construction activities are completed. 

In addition, FERC is to regularly inspect the construction. Section 7 of the 

Natural Gas Act grants the right of eminent domain when FERC issues a 

certificate of public convenience and necessity; the pipeline company 

therefore has the right to acquire the property for that project by eminent 

domain if it cannot acquire the necessary land by agreement or if it 

cannot agree with the landowner on the compensation to be paid for the 

land. 

If a new intrastate natural gas pipeline construction project does not cross 

a state border, then the responsibility for approval of pipeline routes falls 

to the individual states, and FERC does not play a role in siting the 

pipeline. The permitting process for these pipelines varies from state to 

state and may involve many federal, state, and local stakeholders. Unlike 

the interstate process, the intrastate process in most of the states we 

reviewed does not use a lead agency to authorize and coordinate siting 

and environmental reviews.

Post-authorization Phase

The Intrastate Permitting 

Process Varies by State, 

and Most States We 

Reviewed Do Not Use a 

Lead Agency
 

Page 23 GAO-13-221 Pipeline Permitting

As is the case with the interstate permitting process, pipeline companies 

must consider two issues when planning an intrastate natural gas 

pipeline: land acquisition and the need to identify the siting authority that 

oversees the location and route for that pipeline. To acquire rights to the 

land necessary to build the pipeline, pipeline companies will generally 

attempt to negotiate right-of-way agreements with individual landowners 

along the intended route. If negotiations fail, the companies may seek to 

acquire the land through eminent domain proceedings. There is no 

uniform standard for right-of-way agreements and eminent domain 

authority, and procedures vary by state. However, BLM will process 

permits for intrastate natural gas pipelines located on federal lands 

administered by the Bureau.

Of the 11 states we reviewed, 5 have agencies charged with siting 

intrastate natural gas pipelines. These 5 states require advance approval 

of the location and the route of the pipeline. The remaining 6 do not have 

siting agencies that require advance approval of location and route. Table 

2 shows these differences among the states we examined.

Table 2: Processes of 11 Selected States for Approving the Siting of an Intrastate Natural Gas Pipeline

State 

State agency that 

issues siting 

permit Intrastate pipeline siting process

California None According to officials from the California Public Utility Commission, once a natural gas pipeline 

company has received authority from the commission to operate in a certain service territory, it 

does not need to seek further authority from the commission to construct additional pipelines.

Colorado None According to officials at the Colorado Public Utilities Commission, the commission does not 

require pipeline companies to obtain a siting permit, but it does require them to notify the 

commission in writing of certain planned intrastate natural gas pipelines no later than 20 days 

before the anticipated construction.

Delaware None According to officials at the Delaware Public Service Commission, the commission does not 

require pipeline companies to obtain a siting permit, but many companies voluntarily notify the 

commission before construction. If the pipeline is associated with an extension of a pipeline 

company’s service territory, then a company would need the commission’s approval to extend 

the service territory.

Florida Florida Department 

of Environmental 

Protection

According to officials at the Florida Department of Environmental Protection, the department is 

the lead agency for siting intrastate natural gas pipelines that meet certain criteria. This 

department coordinates with other affected state agencies and local governments and issues a 

final certification that must be approved by the governor, the attorney general, the chief 

financial officer, and the commissioner of agriculture. 

Siting Authority
 

Page 24 GAO-13-221 Pipeline Permitting

State 

State agency that 

issues siting 

permit Intrastate pipeline siting process

New York New York State 

Public Service 

Commission

According to officials at the New York State Department of Public Service, the Public Service 

Commission is the decision-making body that authorizes the siting and construction of major 

gas transmission facilities by issuing a Certificate of Environmental Compatibility and Public 

Need. The applicant must submit its proposed project to the commission, with copies to several 

state agencies, and each municipality in which any portion of the pipeline is to be located. If the 

commission issues a certificate, the applicant must submit environmental management and 

construction plans and other post-certificate filings. Construction begins when final right-of-way 

acquisitions are completed and all preconstruction conditions of the certificate are met. 

North Dakota North Dakota Public 

Service Commission

According to officials at the North Dakota Public Service Commission, the commission has 

authority over the siting of intrastate pipelines. The commission also developed criteria for 

exclusion and avoidance areas—such as national and state parks, areas critical to the life 

stages of threatened or endangered species, and historical resources. Pipeline companies 

must discuss these areas in the application process. These areas may be located within a 

pipeline corridor, but at no given point can these areas encompass more than 50 percent of the 

corridor unless there is no reasonable alternative.

Oklahoma None According to officials at the Oklahoma Corporation Commission, pipeline siting is a managerial 

decision on the part of the company; the state does not get involved.

Pennsylvania None According to officials from the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection and the 

Pennsylvania Public Utility Commission, no state agency has siting authority in Pennsylvania.

Rhode Island Energy Facility 

Siting Board

According to officials at the Rhode Island Public Utilities Commission, the Energy Facility Siting 

Board is the authority for all licenses or permits required for the siting, construction, or alteration 

of a major energy facility in the state, including natural gas pipelines. The pipeline company is 

responsible for obtaining all permits needed for the siting board, including all permitting and 

licensing under the purview of the state’s Department of Environmental Management, which is 

outside of the siting board’s jurisdiction.

Texas None According to officials at the Railroad Commission of Texas, common carrier and gas utility 

pipeline companies have statutory right of eminent domain and may obtain right-of-way to 

construct intrastate pipelines without any prior approval or permit.

Vermont Vermont Public 

Service Board

According to officials at the Vermont Public Service Department and the Agency of Natural 

Resources, to construct natural gas pipelines, applicants must obtain a Certificate of Public 

Good from the Vermont Public Service Board, which collaborates with the department and the 

Vermont Agency of Natural Resources on a comprehensive land use review. Applicants are 

also likely to be required to obtain individual environmental permits from the Agency of Natural 

Resources.

Source: GAO analysis of state documents and interviews with state officials.

As the table shows, the requirements of the application process differ 

from Florida—which generally requires state certification before 

constructing certain intrastate natural gas pipelines—to Texas, which 

does not require pipeline companies to obtain a permit to construct an 

intrastate pipeline and which gives natural gas utility pipeline companies 

statutory right of eminent domain without any prior state approval.

According to public interest and industry group representatives we spoke 

with, the intrastate process for permitting and siting pipelines needs to be 

more transparent. In many states, it is difficult to determine the process 
 

Page 25 GAO-13-221 Pipeline Permitting

for pipeline siting and whether the state has an agency with siting 

authority. They also told us that the intrastate process is challenging to 

navigate without an agency that takes the lead on siting and coordinating 

the environmental review, as FERC does at the interstate level. 

Additionally, representatives from two public interest groups we spoke 

with explained that it is more difficult for the public to comment on 

proposals for intrastate pipelines because the state processes are not

transparent, and the public may not learn about pipelines until after they 

have been approved. The availability of eminent domain authority can 

also change how companies deal with land owners and, as a result, can 

change land owners’ perspective on the process as a whole, according to 

the public interest group representatives.

Federal agencies become involved in the intrastate natural gas pipeline 

permitting process if federally protected resources have the potential to 

be affected by a project. For example, the Corps becomes involved when 

a proposed pipeline will be constructed in aquatic resources over which it 

has jurisdiction and FWS becomes involved if the route crosses an area 

with a plant or habitat on the federal list of threatened or endangered 

species. 

State environmental laws and regulations are applicable to intrastate 

pipelines. However, in 10 of the 11 states we reviewed, no single entity is 

responsible for coordinating all of the environmental reviews, including 

federal and state authorizations, during the intrastate permitting process.

For example, in Rhode Island, the Energy Facility Siting Board is the 

authority for approving the siting and construction of natural gas pipelines; 

the pipeline company is responsible for obtaining all necessary permits, 

including all permitting and licensing under the jurisdiction of the state’s 

Department of Environmental Management. Conversely, the New York 

State Public Service Commission is the lead agency for the siting of 

intrastate natural gas pipelines. This department coordinates with other 

affected state agencies and local governments on the permitting 

process—one stop licensing.

Environmental Review 
 

Page 26 GAO-13-221 Pipeline Permitting

For interstate pipelines, FERC’s public record information system 

contains documents that provide dates associated with the phases of the 

permitting process; however, FERC does not track the time it takes to 

complete the process. FERC officials said data on processing time 

frames is of limited use when planning a project because the variability 

among projects can make them incomparable. Using the information 

available on interstate natural gas pipeline projects certified from January 

1, 2010, to October 24, 2012, we determined that the average processing 

time from pre-filing to certification for interstate natural gas pipeline 

projects was 558 days, and the processing times ranged from 370 to 886 

days. These projects varied in size and function and included pipelines, 

pipeline expansions, compressor stations, and other pipeline facilities. For 

projects that begin in the application phase, the average processing time 

from formal filing to certification was 225 days for this period. The 

processing times for these projects, which tended to be for compressor 

stations and smaller pipeline expansions, ranged from 63 to 455 days.

For intrastate pipelines, because the permitting process varies by state, 

the time frames for those processes may also vary. As is the case with 

interstate pipelines, time frames associated with permitting of intrastate 

pipelines may also vary because of differences in stakeholders, siting, 

and environmental factors and range in the amount of time to complete 

the permitting process. Some state agencies gave us estimates of time 

frames for specific parts of the process, but we found little comprehensive 

data on the intrastate permitting process in the states we reviewed. 

Comprehensive data are probably not available because most states do 

not have a lead agency that coordinates all the reviews necessary to 

complete the permitting process. For example, North Dakota state 

officials estimated that the siting part of the permitting process for 

intrastate pipelines takes just over 3 months; however, these 3 months do 

not include the time associated with any federal or state environmental 

reviews that may be necessary for pipeline projects. A New York state 

official estimated that the entire intrastate permitting process, including 

siting and all environmental reviews, takes 60 to 90 days for small 

pipelines, 3 to 6 months for medium pipelines, and 12 to 18 months for 

large pipelines. However, according to the official, these time frames vary 

depending on the complexity of the project and public opposition.

The following factors can further affect the time frame for an interstate or 

intrastate pipeline project’s permitting process, as our stakeholders 

explained:

Time Frames for 

Interstate and 

Intrastate Pipeline 

Permitting Processes 

Vary Because of 

Multiple Factors
 

Page 27 GAO-13-221 Pipeline Permitting

• Corps Section 404 Clean Water Act and Section 10 Rivers and 

Harbors Act permitting. The Corps does not have statutory deadlines 

or time frames for evaluating applications for natural gas pipelines or 

other types of regulated activities. However, the Corps has two 

performance measures specific to the timing of permit decisions. For 

standard individual permits, the Corps has a goal of completing its 

reviews and making permit decisions for 50 percent of permit 

applications within 120 days from receiving complete applications. In 

fiscal year 2011, the Corps reported that it had issued a decision on 

71 percent of these applications within 120 days. The Corps has a 

goal of processing 75 percent of general permits within 60 days from 

receiving a complete request. In fiscal year 2011, the Corps reported 

that it had acted on 90 percent of these requests within 60 days. 

However, a headquarters official explained that the Corps collects 

information on time frames for reviewing applications and issuing 

decisions for all utility projects under Section 404 of the Clean Water 

Act and Section 10 of the Rivers and Harbors Act and does not 

separate data specific to natural gas pipelines from its reviews of 

other utility projects.

According to Corps officials, application review can take longer for a 

number of reasons, such as the time it takes to receive all necessary 

information from the applicant and the time it takes for other agencies 

to complete decisions necessary for the Corps to finalize its review. 

For example, according to a Corps district official and Pennsylvania 

state officials, the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental 

Protection had, in recent years, a backlog of applications that delayed 

the transfer of applications to the Corps, but that backlog has been 

cleared. Pennsylvania officials said this backlog had probably 

occurred because the number of pipeline applications doubled since 

hydraulic fracturing of Marcellus Shale began in Pennsylvania.21

• FWS and NMFS review under the Endangered Species Act. Federal 

reviews required under the Endangered Species Act can also affect 

time frames for the evaluation of natural gas pipeline projects. These 

 

21According to EIA, between 2009 and 2011, Pennsylvania’s natural gas production more 

than quadrupled due to expanded horizontal drilling combined with hydraulic fracturing. 

Hydraulic fracturing involves pumping water, sand, and chemical additives into oil and gas 

wells at high enough pressure to fracture underground rock formations and allow oil or gas 

to flow. When combined with horizontal drilling, hydraulic fracturing allows operators to 

fracture the rock formation along the entire horizontal portion of a well, increasing the 

number of pathways through which oil or gas can flow. 
 

Page 28 GAO-13-221 Pipeline Permitting

projects can be permitted under the act in two ways. First, under 

section 7 of the act, federal agencies must ensure that any action they 

carry out (or actions of a nonfederal party that require a federal 

agency’s approval, permit, or funding) is unlikely to jeopardize the 

continued existence of a listed species or destroy or adversely modify 

its critical habitat.22 To fulfill this responsibility, federal agencies must 

consult with either FWS or NMFS (whichever agency has jurisdiction) 

when their actions may affect listed species or critical habitat. Formal 

consultations generally result in the issuance by FWS or NMFS of 

reports known as “biological opinions,” which discuss in detail the 

effects of proposed actions on listed species and their critical habitat, 

as well as that agency’s opinion on whether a proposed action is likely 

to jeopardize a species’ continued existence or destroy or adversely 

modify its critical habitat. The opinion also determines the quantity or 

extent of anticipated “incidental take”23

For actions without a federal nexus (i.e., no federal funding, permit, or 

license), section 10 of the Endangered Species Act provides an 

avenue for entities to obtain permits for activities—such as the 

construction of a natural gas pipeline or a highway—that may result in 

the take of a listed species. An applicant for a permit is to submit a 

habitat conservation plan that shows the likely impact of the planned 

action; steps taken to minimize and mitigate the impact; funding for 

the mitigation; alternatives considered and rejected; and any other 

measures FWS or NMFS may require. According to representatives of 

an industry association we spoke with, their members report 

successful coordination of consultations under section 7 of the act 

because a federal agency, such as FERC for interstate pipelines and 

BLM for some intrastate pipelines, can assist the pipeline company in 

—that is, take that is not 

intentional but occurs nonetheless as a result of carrying out an 

agency action. FERC consults with FWS or NMFS under section 7 of 

the Endangered Species Act for the construction of interstate natural 

gas pipelines.

 

22For the purpose of this report, the term “listed species” includes not only the species 

itself but also its critical habitat, if critical habitat has been designated under the 

Endangered Species Act.

23The Endangered Species Act provides direction for conserving threatened and 

endangered species. Specifically, section 9 of the act generally prohibits the “take” of 

endangered species. The act defines take as “to harass, harm, pursue, hunt, shoot, 

wound, kill, trap, capture, or collect, or to attempt to engage in any such conduct.” 16 

U.S.C. § 1532(19) (2006). 
 

Page 29 GAO-13-221 Pipeline Permitting

establishing long-term mitigation plans and other requirements for 

section 7 approval. The section 10 review process is less preferable, 

according to representatives, because the pipeline company is 

responsible for coordinating the relevant federal and state agency

reviews and permits before the section 10 review is completed, which 

takes more time than a section 7 consultation.

• Delays in state and local government reviews. State and local 

permitting and review processes can take time and affect federal 

decision-making time frames because some federal agencies cannot

issue their permits until state and local governments have completed 

their own permitting processes. For example, permits for federal 

programs delegated to states, such as section 401 of the Clean Water 

Act, can take time for state agencies to review and are needed for the 

Corps to issue an individual permit or verify a general permit. 

According to a Corps official and state officials, some states 

experience delays in completing these reviews.

• Overlap of federal, state, and local environmental processes. 

According to representatives of an industry association we spoke with, 

jurisdictional overlaps between federal, state, and local agencies force 

pipeline companies to obtain environmental permits or approvals from 

more than one level of government for the same activity. In some 

cases, the pipeline company must coordinate the pipeline route with 

the requirements for permits and reviews required by up to four 

different authorities at the federal, state, county, and municipal level. 

For example, these representatives stated, EPA’s regional office 

serving Alabama requires that ordinances be adopted to create a local 

construction storm water permitting program to regulate the same 

construction sites that the Alabama Department of Environmental 

Management already regulates under its statewide program. 

According to these representatives, natural gas pipeline projects 

throughout the state of Alabama are required to comply with the state 

issued general permit as well as overlapping permits for the same 

activities in any of the 67 counties and hundreds of small towns that 

their projects may pass through. These industry representatives 

reported project delays and resource allocation constraints because 

several layers of reviews and permits involving various federal, state, 

and local stakeholders often take place to address the same 

environmental issues for the same natural gas project. However, 

according to representatives of public interest groups we spoke with, 

efforts to combine federal, state, and local processes can undermine

the opportunity for public comment.
 

Page 30 GAO-13-221 Pipeline Permitting

• Incomplete applications. Officials in all of the Corps district offices that 

we spoke with reported that incomplete applications may delay their 

review because applicants need time to revise their information. 

Applications are considered incomplete for a variety of reasons. For 

example, the application may be missing jurisdictional information 

(i.e., where the waters of the United States are located relative to the 

project) or the applicant may miscalculate impacts. Officials from a 

state resource agency told us that environmental consultants, hired 

and given processing deadlines by pipeline companies, may submit 

incomplete applications in order to meet those deadlines. According to 

a Corps headquarters official, if applicants do not submit all of the 

appropriate documentation, the permit process may be delayed. 

• Project opposition. Public opposition and litigation can lengthen the 

time needed to review a pipeline project or even lead to the 

cancellation of a project. For example, public interest groups can work 

with the public to request extended comment periods and public 

hearings for proposed natural gas pipeline projects that may 

adversely affect the environmental resources in the area.

According to officials from federal and state agencies and representatives 

from industry and public interest groups we interviewed, several 

management practices could be implemented to help overcome some of 

the challenges of a complex permitting process identified by these 

stakeholders. These practices would help overcome the challenges 

involved in implementing an efficient permitting process and obtaining 

public comments on pipeline projects. In this regard, in March 2012, the 

president signed Executive Order 13604, which aims to institutionalize 

best practices and reduce the amount of time required to make permitting 

and review decisions for infrastructure projects, including pipelines.24

• Ensuring a lead agency is coordinating the efforts of federal, state, 

and local permitting processes for intrastate pipelines.

Representatives from industry and public interest groups we 

Stakeholders we spoke with and the administration, in its plan for 

implementing the executive order, identified the following management 

practices as effective, among others:

 

24Executive Order No. 13604, Improving Performance of Federal Permitting and Review 

of Infrastructure Projects (Mar. 22, 2012).

Natural Gas Pipeline 

Stakeholders 

Identified 

Management 

Practices to Improve 

the Permitting 

Process 
 

Page 31 GAO-13-221 Pipeline Permitting

interviewed noted that the interstate process is better coordinated 

than intrastate processes because FERC is designated as the lead 

agency for the environmental review of a pipeline project, but there is 

no similar lead agency in the intrastate permitting process.

Representatives of a public interest group noted that the absence of a 

lead agency also makes it difficult for the public to become involved in 

the permitting process because citizens often do not know which 

agency to contact about a pipeline project.

In that regard, in July 2001, the Interstate Oil and Gas Compact 

Commission and the National Association of Regulatory Utility 

Commissioners’ pipeline siting working group recommended that each 

state establish a coordinating effort within the governor’s office to 

monitor and assist in expediting the permitting process, while 

eliminating duplication of activities among state and local permitting 

entities. They further recommended that states identify all participants 

in the permitting process, consider naming a lead agency to monitor 

processing schedules within existing regulatory requirements, and 

determine information that needs to be communicated to the public.

• Ensure effective collaboration of the numerous stakeholders. 

Stakeholders we interviewed emphasized the importance of 

collaboration among the numerous stakeholders involved in the 

permitting process. Some federal officials noted delays occur in the 

permitting process when stakeholders do not collaborate effectively. 

For example, a federal agency’s permitting process may be delayed if 

it receives insufficient information from a cooperating agency. The 

federal plan for implementation of Executive Order 13604 identified 

several examples of best practices to enhance interagency 

coordination. Some federal agencies have memorandums of 

understanding or agreements with other agencies to establish 

collaborative relationships that relate to the permitting process. For 

example, as described earlier, FERC and nine other agencies signed 

an interagency agreement for early coordination of required 

environmental and historic preservation reviews to encourage the 

timely development of pipeline projects. FERC and FWS also have a 

memorandum of understanding that focuses on avoiding or 

minimizing adverse impacts on migratory birds and strengthening 

migratory bird conservation through enhanced collaboration.

• Providing planning tools to help companies plan routes for pipelines 

and avoid sensitive environmental resources. Industry representatives 

we spoke with noted that there is a need for technology tools that can 

aid in the proper routing of pipelines when companies are planning a 
 

Page 32 GAO-13-221 Pipeline Permitting

project. Such tools should involve mapping software and best 

practices for specific areas of the country so that agencies do not 

need to reassess environmental impacts each time a company plans 

a project. These tools would also allow the project to be routed with 

the fewest environmental impacts at an early stage in the pipeline 

company’s design process. Without such tools, it is difficult for 

pipeline companies to route a project given the various federal, state, 

and local requirements that are not available in a single location. For 

example, FWS is currently developing such a tool—the Information, 

Planning and Conservation (IPaC) System—that is expected to let 

companies determine whether there are any endangered and 

threatened species in a potential project area and obtain information 

about the measures the companies can take to help protect and 

conserve those species when designing and constructing a project.

This system is expected to help companies make better routing 

decisions early on, eliminating the need to modify project plans later in 

the permitting process. The federal plan to implement Executive Order 

13604 selected IPaC as an example of a best practice to “reduce 

surprises and help project proponents make better informed design 

decisions early, when there is more flexibility to make minor 

modification with minimum disruption of the project goals.” 

Another planning tool that was mentioned as making the process 

more efficient by industry representatives was the Pennsylvania 

Natural Diversity Inventory Environmental Review Tool, which screens 

proposed projects to identify, avoid, or mitigate impacts on federal or 

state-identified threatened or endangered species. Industry 

representatives said this tool has been helpful to determine potential 

adverse impacts and plan mitigation.

In addition, BLM designates pipeline corridors as part of its land use 

planning process. According to BLM officials, corridors reduce 

environmental impacts by allowing projects to share access roads and 

use previously disturbed areas. They also reduce the need for new 

data collection and land use plan amendments. 

• Offering industry the option to fund contractors or agency staff to 

expedite the permitting process. Industry representatives said that 

many pipeline companies are willing to fund contractors or agency 

staff to speed up their application review process, which has slowed 

because of increasing numbers of energy projects and fewer agency 

resources. For example, stakeholders cited FERC’s practice of 

allowing applicants to fund a third-party contractor to review 
 

Page 33 GAO-13-221 Pipeline Permitting

applications and assist the agency in preparing NEPA environmental 

documents. The third-party contractor is selected by and works under 

the supervision of FERC officials but is paid by the pipeline company. 

Other federal agencies have similar practices that allow applicants to 

offer funding assistance during the permitting process. A FWS official 

said this outside support is essential for agencies given the heavy 

workload and short time frames associated with pipeline projects.

However, not all agencies have Congressional authority to accept 

funds. For instance, according to Corps officials, the agency cannot 

accept funds from private entities and can only accept funds from 

non-Federal public entities under specific circumstances.

• Increase the opportunities for public comments. According to 

representatives of some public interest groups and some state 

officials we interviewed, the public needs to have more opportunities 

to comment on a proposed pipeline project during the permitting 

process. A representative from one group observed that, while the 

typical NEPA process for public input allows the public to comment 

throughout the environmental review, FERC only offers a brief period 

for formal public comments. Representatives of other groups 

mentioned that, because the pipeline permitting process is 

complicated, it is difficult for the public to know when and how to 

comment and that additional information from the applicant, FERC, 

and states would be helpful. The implementation plan for Executive 

Order 13604 includes multiple best practice examples to improve 

outreach and education of the public. For example, the Department of 

the Interior is developing a web-based clearinghouse for 

environmental information on energy resource development. This 

clearinghouse is to provide environmental best practices, methods for 

conducting environmental assessments to aid in decision making, 

links to applicable federal and state laws related to energy 

development, and information on the various impacts of energy 

development projects.

We provided a draft of this report for review and comment to the 

Departments of Agriculture, Defense, and the Interior; EPA; and FERC.

The Department of Agriculture provided written comments in which they 

generally agreed with the overall findings of the report. The written 

comments are presented in appendix II of this report. The Department of 

Defense generally agreed with the overall findings of the report and 

provided technical or clarifying comments, which we incorporated as 

appropriate. The Department of the Interior and FERC provided technical 

Agency Comments 

and Our Evaluation
 

Page 34 GAO-13-221 Pipeline Permitting

or clarifying comments, which we incorporated as appropriate. EPA 

indicated that they had no comments on the report. 

We are sending copies of this report to the appropriate congressional 

committees; the Secretaries of Agriculture, Defense, and of the Interior; 

the Administrator of EPA; the Chairman of FERC; and other interested 

parties. In addition, the report is available at no charge on the GAO 

website at http://www.gao.gov. 

If you or your staff have any questions about this report, please contact 

me at (202) 512-3841 or ruscof@gao.gov. Contact points for our Offices 

of Congressional Relations and Public Affairs may be found on the last 

page of this report. GAO staff who made key contributions to this report 

are listed in appendix III.

Frank Rusco

Director

Natural Resources and Environment
Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and 

Methodology

Page 35 GAO-13-221 Pipeline Permitting

Our objectives for this review were to determine (1) the processes 

necessary for pipeline companies to acquire permits to construct 

interstate and intrastate natural gas pipelines; (2) information available on 

the time frames associated with the natural gas pipeline permitting 

process; and (3) stakeholder-identified management practices, if any, that 

may improve the permitting process. For purposes of this report, we 

consider the permitting process to involve steps companies need to take 

to obtain a permit, authorization, certificate, or approval from a federal, 

state, or local entity in order to construct a natural gas pipeline.

To understand processes and permits required to construct natural gas 

pipelines at the federal level, we reviewed relevant federal laws and 

regulations, as well as agency documentation, such as the interagency 

agreement between the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) 

and nine other federal agencies regarding their coordination during the 

review process for the National Environmental Policy Act and efforts to 

facilitate the development of natural gas pipeline projects.1

To determine the processes for obtaining permits to construct natural gas 

pipelines at the state level, we selected a nonprobability sample of states 

for further review. We developed the following list of criteria to use as a 

tool for determining which states to include in our review:

In addition, we 

reviewed literature on natural gas pipeline permitting issues and previous 

relevant GAO reports. We interviewed officials with regulatory 

responsibilities at FERC, the Army Corps of Engineers (Corps), the 

departments of Agriculture and of the Interior, and the Environmental 

Protection Agency. We also interviewed a range of other knowledgeable 

individuals—including representatives of public interest groups, such as 

the Pipeline Safety Trust and Delaware Riverkeeper Network; and 

representatives of industry groups, such as the American Gas 

Association and the American Petroleum Institute—whom we identified as 

having expertise related to the permitting of natural gas pipelines.

• size of pipeline network (miles of pipe);

 

1 Agencies included in the Interagency Agreement on Early Coordination of Required 

Environmental and Historic Preservation Reviews Conducted in Conjunction with the 

Issuance of Authorizations to Construct and Operate Interstate Natural Gas Pipelines 

Certificated by the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission are the departments of the 

Army; Agriculture; Commerce; Energy; and the Interior; the Advisory Council on Historic 

Preservation; the Environmental Protection Agency; and the White House Council on 

Environmental Quality.

Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and 

Methodology 
Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and 

Methodology

Page 36 GAO-13-221 Pipeline Permitting

• amount of natural gas production (trillion British thermal units);

• amount of natural gas consumption (trillion British thermal units);

• natural gas inflow capacity (Million Cubic Feet per Day);

• natural gas outflow capacity (Million Cubic Feet per Day);

• population density;

• congressional interest; and

• recommendations from federal agency officials and other 

knowledgeable individuals.

Because we anticipated that states differ in their pipeline permitting 

processes, it was important to include states that ranked both high and 

large on the selection criteria, as well as states that ranked are low and 

small. We selected states by identifying the top five and the bottom five of 

each selection factor. For example, in considering the size of the pipeline 

network, we identified the five states with the most miles of pipeline and 

the five states with the fewest miles of pipeline. We also identified the 

states that were of congressional interest, recommended by a federal 

agency, and/or other knowledgeable individuals we spoke with. The 

states selected in our review are those that were most frequently 

recommended and/or identified in our ranking process. We selected 

states that were recommended and/or identified in our ranking process at 

least four times to be included in our review. Twelve states were above 

this threshold—California, Colorado, Delaware, Florida, Louisiana, New 

York, North Dakota, Oklahoma, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Texas, and 

Vermont. Louisiana was later omitted from our review because of limited 

response from the state. For our selected states, we reviewed relevant 

documentation and conducted interviews with state agency officials and 

officials at Corps district offices in California, Florida, Pennsylvania, and 

Texas. Because our sample was a nonprobability sample, the information 

we obtained is not generalizable to all states but provides illustrative 

information.

To identify the information available on the time frames associated with 

the natural gas pipeline permitting process, we conducted interviews with 

federal officials, industry associations, and public interest groups. In 

addition, we reviewed documents contained in FERC’s eLibrary, which is 

a record information system of electronic versions of documents issued 
Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and 

Methodology

Page 37 GAO-13-221 Pipeline Permitting

and received by FERC on natural gas pipeline projects. FERC provided 

us with information on projects certified from January 1, 2009, to October 

24, 2012. Owing to time and resource constraints, we limited our review 

to projects certified since January 1, 2010, and used eLibrary to access 

documents that contained information on the pre-filling date, traditional 

filling date, and certification date of these projects. In addition, we 

conducted interviews with FERC officials to determine the completeness 

of the documents contained in the system.

We conducted this performance audit from May 2012 to February 2013, 

in accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards. 

Those standards require that we plan and perform the audit to obtain 

sufficient, appropriate evidence to provide a reasonable basis for our 

findings and conclusions based on our audit objectives. We believe that 

the evidence obtained provides a reasonable basis for our findings and 

conclusions based on our audit objectives.
Appendix II: Comments from the Department 

of Agriculture

Page 38 GAO-13-221 Pipeline Permitting

Appendix II: Comments from the Department 

of Agriculture
Appendix III: GAO Contacts and Staff 

Acknowledgements

Page 39 GAO-13-221 Pipeline Permitting

Frank Rusco, (202) 512-3841 or ruscof@gao.gov

In addition to the individual named above, key contributors to this report 

included Karla Springer, Assistant Director; Pedro Almoguera; Cheryl 

Arvidson; Cindy Gilbert; Griffin Glatt-Dowd; Holly Sasso; Carol Herrnstadt 

Shulman; Barbara Timmerman; and Jeremy Williams.

Appendix III: GAO Contacts and Staff 

Acknowledgements 

GAO Contact

Acknowledgments 

(361410)
The Government Accountability Office, the audit, evaluation, and 

investigative arm of Congress, exists to support Congress in meeting its 

constitutional responsibilities and to help improve the performance and 

accountability of the federal government for the American people. GAO 

examines the use of public funds; evaluates federal programs and 

policies; and provides analyses, recommendations, and other assistance 

to help Congress make informed oversight, policy, and funding decisions. 

GAO’s commitment to good government is reflected in its core values of 

accountability, integrity, and reliability.

The fastest and easiest way to obtain copies of GAO documents at no 

cost is through GAO’s website (http://www.gao.gov). Each weekday 

afternoon, GAO posts on its website newly released reports, testimony, 

and correspondence. To have GAO e-mail you a list of newly posted 

products, go to http://www.gao.gov and select “E-mail Updates.”

The price of each GAO publication reflects GAO’s actual cost of 

production and distribution and depends on the number of pages in the 

publication and whether the publication is printed in color or black and 

white. Pricing and ordering information is posted on GAO’s website, 

http://www.gao.gov/ordering.htm. 

Place orders by calling (202) 512-6000, toll free (866) 801-7077, or 

TDD (202) 512-2537. 

Orders may be paid for using American Express, Discover Card, 

MasterCard, Visa, check, or money order. Call for additional information.

Connect with GAO on Facebook, Flickr, Twitter, and YouTube. 

Subscribe to our RSS Feeds or E-mail Updates. Listen to our Podcasts. 

Visit GAO on the web at www.gao.gov. 

Contact:

Website: http://www.gao.gov/fraudnet/fraudnet.htm

E-mail: fraudnet@gao.gov

Automated answering system: (800) 424-5454 or (202) 512-7470

Katherine Siggerud, Managing Director, siggerudk@gao.gov, (202) 512-

4400, U.S. Government Accountability Office, 441 G Street NW, Room 

7125, Washington, DC 20548

Chuck Young, Managing Director, youngc1@gao.gov, (202) 512-4800

U.S. Government Accountability Office, 441 G Street NW, Room 7149 

Washington, DC 20548

GAO’s Mission

Obtaining Copies of 

GAO Reports and 

Testimony 

Order by Phone

Connect with GAO

To Report Fraud, 

Waste, and Abuse in 

Federal Programs

Congressional 

Relations 

Public Affairs

Please Print on Recycled Paper.