Download this Insight (PDF)
Introduction
The National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) is a foundational environmental permitting statute that requires federal agencies to disclose the environmental impacts of major federal actions, with the aim of ensuring that agencies take a “hard look” at environmental consequences and incorporate those considerations into decisionmaking. One of the first steps in the environmental review process is for agencies to determine the extent of the environmental impact of their proposed action, thereby determining the extent and nature of the review that will take place. For actions that are anticipated to have a significant impact, agencies must produce an environmental impact statement (EIS), the most comprehensive form of environmental review under NEPA. For those with an unknown impact, agencies must produce an Environmental Assessment (EA), while projects without an impact undergo a Categorical Exclusion.
Importantly, NEPA is not the only permitting statute that affects federal agency actions. Other statutes, such as the Endangered Species Act (ESA), Clean Water Act (CWA), and others, at times require project sponsors to seek separate consultations, permits, or authorizations from federal agencies in addition to NEPA review. Responding to this growth in the number and types of permits, President Carter formalized the NEPA umbrella in Executive Order 11991 and the subsequent rulemakings promulgated from it. The NEPA umbrella and the Carter rulemakings encouraged agencies “to the fullest extent possible…[i]ntegrate the requirements of NEPA with other planning and environmental review procedures” including federal, state, and local requirements.
This coordination framework was further enhanced in the 2015 Title 41 of the Fixing America’s Surface Transportation (FAST-41) Act. Among other things, FAST-41 created the Federal Permitting Council (FPC) and required that they oversee the coordination of certain projects including coordinating federal permits, establishing and maintaining project-specific permitting timetables, and increasing transparency and accountability across participating agencies. It also reduced the statute of limitations for projects covered under FAST-41 from six years to two years of the final agency action.
While both the Carter regulations and FAST-41 were intended to expedite the timetables of the federal permitting process, concerns still exist about the speed of federal infrastructure permitting. Much of the discussion about these delays focuses on the NEPA review itself. However, this discussion has obscured the extent to which non-NEPA permits under the umbrella may slow down infrastructure deployment and the extent to which the delays are driven by a few outliers rather than being a systematic problem across all projects. This Regulatory Policy Insight focuses on the timing of individual federal permits issued under the NEPA umbrella. Using project- and permit-specific data from the FAST-41 Permitting Dashboard, we examine when specific permits and consultations are initiated and completed relative to NEPA milestones for large infrastructure projects. By disaggregating project review into its constituent permits, the paper identifies which permits are more likely to slow down the infrastructure deployment process, where coordination issues persist in spite of the FAST-41 framework, and how NEPA may act as a coordinating mechanism across permits. We caution that the findings regarding the overall length of certain permits from this analysis are not generalizable to all NEPA reviews. Projects that participate in FAST-41 must meet a series of criteria related to their size and complexity that make them distinct from non-FAST-41 projects. Likewise, the enhanced coordination may make them distinct in their speed compared to non-FAST-41 projects. However, our analysis does provide important insight into the differences in review lengths across permits and infrastructure types, as well as the role of NEPA as a coordination mechanism.
Policy Background
EIS Process
The NEPA review process begins by determining whether a proposed action has an unknown or a known environmental impact. If there is an unknown impact, then the actions will undergo an EA to determine whether the proposed action is likely to result in significant environmental impacts. If the action is not likely to have an impact, then the lead agency issues a finding of no significant impact and they may proceed with the proposed action without preparing an EIS, subject to any mitigation measures identified in the EA. If there is a likely environmental impact, then the agency will prepare an EIS.
The EIS process begins with a notice of intent and a scoping period during which time the agency identifies the purpose and need for the action, determines a range of reasonable alternatives, and solicits input from the public, other agencies, and affected stakeholders on the issues to be analyzed. Importantly, other agencies may participate in the EIS as cooperating agencies that have jurisdiction by law or special expertise with respect to the environmental impacts of the proposed action, allowing their analyses and consultations to be coordinated and incorporated into the NEPA review. Once the scoping period is complete, the agency produces a draft EIS, which is circulated for public comment. During this stage, the Environmental Protection Agency reviews and comments on the draft EIS pursuant to Section 309 of the Clean Air Act, evaluating the adequacy of the analysis. Then, the lead agency reviews and responds to comments, revises the analysis as appropriate, and prepares a final EIS that informs the agency’s ultimate decision on whether and how to proceed with the proposed action, the lead agency may then issue a record of decision documenting the selected alternative, mitigation requirements, and the rationale for the agency’s decision.
While there is little comprehensive data on the length of these documents, a CEQ report from the first Trump administration noted that the median length of a draft EIS is 397 pages, while the median length for a final EIS is 447 pages. Importantly, historic documentation suggests that EISs have grown over time. While there is no historical data on the length of early EISs, individual examples were under ten pages in length. The growth in the length of EISs has been plausibly attributed to a number of factors; however, the risk of litigation is considered a key reason why agencies began to extend the length of their analyses. Indeed, shortly after NEPA’s enactment, the DC Circuit confirmed that NEPA decisions are reviewable under the Administrative Procedure Act. Agencies responded to the increasing litigation risk by producing increasingly detailed and expansive EISs.
NEPA Umbrella
As an umbrella statute, NEPA provides a single mechanism through which multiple federal, state, and local permits may be coordinated, rather than having each permit proceed through its own track. This allows for a single administrative record, set of alternatives, and mitigation framework across agencies. This further reduces duplicative data collection, environmental reviews, and inconsistent treatment of environmental impacts. Equally important, the umbrella mitigates the risk that agencies issue conflicting permit conditions. When agencies act as cooperating agencies in a single NEPA process, potential conflicts, such as incompatible mitigation or monitoring requirements, can be reconciled before permits are issued. Importantly, EAs, as well as EISs, may also act as a coordinating permit across agencies.
Agency-specific NEPA procedures may supplement interagency coordination under the umbrella further. For example, the Department of Energy has structured its review process to ensure that loan guarantees, interconnection agreements, and other approvals rely on the same review process. Within the Department of Interior, subagency-level procedures coordinate leasing, right-of-ways, and construction approvals. Similarly, the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission uses NEPA to integrate conditions imposed through its certificates with those required by cooperating agencies.
FAST-41 and Covered Projects
FAST-41 does not change permitting requirements themselves. Instead, it changes how agencies coordinate their reviews by placing covered projects under the oversight of the FPC and requiring agencies to use a single, publicly visible schedule for permits. Participation is voluntary and limited to projects that meet the following criteria: they must be subject to NEPA; require an investment exceeding $200 million; and not qualify for abbreviated authorization under another applicable law. Alternatively, they may qualify through a more discretionary pathway in which the project is subject to NEPA and the FPC determines that due to the size and complexity, enhanced coordination would benefit the project. Additional pathways exist for projects sponsored by tribal nations or for carbon capture projects. Importantly, there are also limits on the types of infrastructure projects that are eligible for FAST-41 coordination including renewable or conventional energy production; transmission; surface transportation; aviation; ports and waterways; water resource projects; broadband; pipelines; manufacturing; semiconductors; artificial intelligence; high-performance computing; quantum information science and technology; data storage and management; cybersecurity; carbon capture and storage; energy storage; and mining.
The FPC also tracks transparency projects, which are projects not subject to the FAST-41 requirements but are tracked nonetheless in order to provide additional transparency on the permitting process. In return, these projects may receive funding from the Environmental Review Improvement Fund, which they may use for additional resources to promote the efficiency of their permitting process. Once projects opt in, they are tracked on the Permitting Dashboard with agencies accountable to meeting agreed-upon milestones. Operationally, FAST-41 centers on two planning tools: the Coordinated Project Plan and the permitting timetable. The CPP identifies all required federal environmental permits, the agencies responsible for each action, and the opportunities for coordination across statutes. The timetable then translates the plan into milestones that are posted publicly.
Median Duration of FAST-41 Federal Permits
Table 1 shows wide dispersion in the median time required to complete individual permits within the FAST-41 universe. At the low end, several types of permits are typically completed in under six months, including categorical exclusions (median 0.95 months), Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Permits (4.34 months), Migratory Bird Treaty Act permits (5.29 months), and ESA consultations conducted by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (3.48 months) or NOAA Fisheries (5.98 months). In contrast, more comprehensive or construction-authorizing reviews require substantially longer timeframes. The median EIS takes 41.2 months to complete, while non-federal hydropower licenses (33.0 months), LNG terminal authorizations (38.9 months), and natural gas export authorizations (73.1 months) similarly multiyear reviews. It should be noted, however, that EISs are the umbrella statute for many of these same permits and thus we would expect them to be longer, simply as a matter of practice.
More revealing, however, is the extent of variation within permitting categories that are ostensibly similar in scope and statutory mandate. Right-of-way (ROW) authorizations illustrate this heterogeneity particularly clearly. Median review times range from 11.9 months for Bureau of Land Management ROW approvals to 43.8 months for Bureau of Indian Affairs rights-of-way, despite both authorizing linear infrastructure access across federal lands. Importantly, some of the key permits often blamed for delays in infrastructure are actually not nearly as lengthy as might be expected. For example, Section 404 Clean Water Act permits require a median of 10.4 months and combined Section 404/Section 10 authorizations average 11.3 months.
Median Duration of FAST-41 Federal Permits for Renewable Energy
Table 2 documents substantial variation in the type and duration of permits across renewable energy infrastructure categories, reflecting differences in technological, geographic, and regulatory exposure. Carbon capture projects, for example, are subject to fewer requirements than other infrastructure types, which may partially be attributable to their low spatial intensity and the categorical exclusion that they received under the Biden administration. There are two key things to note. First, as of this writing, there was only one carbon capture project in the FAST-41 database. Second, carbon capture projects vary significantly in their underlying technologies, particularly with respect to whether they involve subsurface CO₂ injection, which could introduce significant variation in the environmental impact and subsequent permitting requirements. By contrast, transmission projects are subject to a broader set of permitting requirements which tend to be disproportionately longer in duration. For example, an EA for a transmission project lasts a median of 29.0 months compared to 9.8 for energy storage and 17.4 for renewable energy. Similarly, Section 7 consultations last a median of 8.6 months for transmission compared to 5.0 for energy storage and 6.2 for renewable energy.
Patterns of Concurrent Permits by Project Sector
Table 3 shows the average number of permits for each project type, the average number of permitting actions occurring at any one time, and the ratio of the average number of permits per project to the number of permits being completed at any one time. If the ratio is closer to 1, then more permits are being reviewed concurrently. Pipelines and renewable energy have the greatest average number of permits per project at 8.4 and 8.1, respectively. Carbon capture and aviation have the fewest at 1.0 and 2.6, respectively. Pipelines and renewable energy have the most actions being permitted concurrently at 5.0 and 4.5, respectively. At the same time, surface transportation and other infrastructure have the fewest at 1.4 and 1.2, respectively. We exclude carbon capture from this part of the analysis because there was only one permit associated with carbon capture. Importantly, the number of permits associated with each infrastructure likely reflects the spatial and environmental intensity of the infrastructure, rather than procedural speed, which is better captured by the ratio of total permits to concurrent permits. To this end, we find that conventional energy production (2.6) and other infrastructure (3.6) have the fewest actions permitted at any one time, while pipelines (1.7) and energy storage (1.7) have the most actions permitted at the same time.
It is important to note that multiple permits must occur sequentially, especially after the scoping period of NEPA. Most notably, Clean Water Act Section 404 permits require the US Army Corps of Engineers to identify the least environmentally damaging practicable alternative, a determination that depends on a finalized alternatives analysis and project footprint under NEPA. Similarly, formal ESA Section 7 consultations require a clearly defined proposed action and action area before a biological opinion may be issued, limiting consultation until project design and siting are sufficiently settled. Because these permits authorize site-specific impacts or property interests, agencies are unable to issue them until prior environmental review and siting decisions are complete. As a result, infrastructure types that rely more heavily on such contingent permits may have lower overlap and higher total permit-to-concurrent permit ratios, even when the total number of required permits is modest or the time to complete an individual permit is short.
Patterns of Concurrent Permits without NEPA
Table 4 shows the patterns of current permits excluding categorical exclusions, EAs, and EISs. We exclude NEPA permits, as they are often the precursor to other permitting requirements and thus their timing mechanically governs when downstream authorizations may be initiated. The overall patterns we observe suggest that of the 15 groups of infrastructure, 11 infrastructure types have lower concurrence ratios without NEPA than with NEPA. In other words, much of the observed concurrency in the federal permitting process is driven by the NEPA review such that NEPA reviews tend to take place with other non-NEPA permits whereas non-NEPA permits are less likely to coincide with each other. This could reflect two factors. First, as stated earlier, NEPA scoping is typically required to initiate the process for other permits including the CWA, ESA, and others. Thus, once the scoping period is complete, these other permits may also be initiated. Another reason is that NEPA reviews serve as the coordination mechanism for interagency engagement, data collection, and public participation. As a result, non-NEPA permits are frequently aligned with NEPA schedules to take advantage of shared permitting requirements. Once the NEPA review process is complete or if there is not a NEPA review associated with a project, the remaining permits lose this coordinating mechanism and are more likely to proceed on agency-specific timelines, reducing the likelihood of concurrent review even when no additional statutory coordinating requirements.
Conclusion
Focusing exclusively on projects subject to FAST-41 coordination, this analysis shows that variation in federal permitting timelines is driven less by NEPA review than by differences in the type and sequencing of individual non-NEPA permits. Permit-level data from the FAST-41 Permitting dashboard indicate that many commonly cited permits, including ESA and CWA authorizations, are typically completed within short timeframes, while a small number of complex, construction authorization permits account for the longest durations. At the same time, NEPA reviews within FAST-41 projects appear to serve as the primary coordination mechanism to enable concurrent reviews across agencies, with less concurrency among non-NEPA permits once NEPA is excluded. These patterns suggest that, within the FAST-41 universe, further reductions in permitting timelines may come from addressing permit-specific constraints and improving coordination after NEPA milestones than changes to NEPA itself. Importantly, these findings are limited to large, complex projects that have opted into FAST-41 and should not be interpreted as evidence about timing or coordination of federal permitting outside of the program.
Appendix
- Table 1. Median Months to Complete each Permit by FAST-41 Project Type
Table 1. Median Months to Complete each Permit by FAST-41 Project Type
Permit
All
Covered
Transparency
DOT
Other
Authorization and Certification
9.82
9.82
Authorization for Liquefied Natural Gas Terminal Facilities, Onshore or in State Waters
38.93
39.36
38.93
Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Permit
4.34
5.91
4.34
2.46
Business Resource Lease
7.43
7.43
Categorical Exclusion
0.95
3.25
0.95
Certificate of Public Convenience and Necessity for Interstate Natural Gas Pipelines
23.69
24.26
19.38
Clean Water Act Section 402 Permit, National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System
3.01
12.19
2.99
0.95
Conditional Letter of Map Revision
2.00
2.00
DOD Mission Compatibility Evaluation Process, Part 211 of Title 32 CFR
4.01
4.01
Development and Production Plan
18.64
37.29
0.00
Easement Administrative Action (USDA – NRCS)
57.69
57.69
Endangered Species Act Consultation (DOI-FWS)
3.48
5.86
3.27
2.94
5.19
Endangered Species Act Consultation (NOAA-NMFS)
5.98
8.74
6.44
5.49
5.45
Environmental Assessment (EA)
17.25
13.57
1.71
17.48
0.00
Environmental Impact Statement (EIS)
41.20
30.24
22.51
53.32
32.20
Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act Review (DOI – FWS)
4.30
8.30
2.02
15.47
Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act Review (NOAA)
4.01
2.99
8.08
Floodplain Assessment
11.04
12.29
8.03
Floodplain or wetland assessment
11.17
11.17
Lease of Power Privilege (DOI-BOR)
5.03
5.03
Loan Guarantee Program, Title XVII of EP Act 2005
19.42
25.10
13.73
Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act, Section 305 Essential Fish Habitat Consultation
6.05
6.70
6.05
6.05
Marine Mammal Protection Act Incidental Take Authorization (NOAA/NMFS)
23.49
23.49
12.94
23.85
Marine Mammal Protection Act Incidental Take Authorization (DOI-FWS)
22.21
22.21
Migratory Bird Treaty Act permits
5.29
5.52
2.46
Mine Plan of Operations (DOI-BLM)
12.39
34.76
6.80
NPS Permit
8.61
4.86
7.49
59.76
Native American Graves Protection Act Compliance
3.22
3.22
Natural Gas Export Authorization
73.10
78.03
70.44
Non-Federal Hydropower Licenses
32.95
42.05
0.00
Notice of Proposed Construction - Form 7460
106.74
106.74
Nuclear Power Plant – Combined (construction and operating) License
3.19
3.19
Obstruction Lighting and Marking Authorization
18.48
23.08
18.48
Operations Plan / Surface Use Plan
27.40
27.40
Outer Continental Shelf (OCS) Air Permit
2.07
1.94
2.07
Plan of Operations (USDA-FS)
18.64
23.62
13.67
Right-of-Way Authorization (DOD)
12.78
11.75
12.78
Right-of-Way Authorization (DOI-BIA)
43.76
40.15
0.00
66.30
Right-of-Way Authorization (DOI-BLM)
11.86
8.44
13.34
Right-of-Way Authorization (DOI-FWS)
16.20
16.20
Safe Drinking Water Act, Aquifer Exemption
30.70
26.09
35.32
Safe Drinking Water Act, Underground Injection Control
14.82
20.02
4.75
31.08
Section 10 Rivers and Harbors Act of 1899 and Section 404 Clean Water Act
10.86
22.72
6.41
Section 10 of the Rivers and Harbors Act of 1899
2.53
12.30
1.22
2.14
16.56
Section 106 Review
4.30
10.68
3.81
4.01
12.25
Section 404 Clean Water Act
10.41
27.73
10.41
10.15
Section 404 Clean Water Act, Section 10 Rivers and Harbors Act of 1899, and Section 103 Marine Protection, Research, and Sanctuaries Act
11.32
13.40
9.95
42.14
Section 408 Permit
17.15
17.15
3.01
31.59
Special Use Permit (FS)
3.55
3.58
1.31
State, Local, Tribal, or Other Non-Federal Action
11.07
11.07
11.86
Supplemental Environmental Assessment
12.88
5.88
15.21
15.75
Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement
21.68
85.42
20.99
61.93
USCG Bridge Permit
7.46
7.46
USCG Letter of Recommendation for Marine Operations
7.16
7.16
Uranium Recovery License
6.32
10.71
1.94
Use Authorization (DOI-BOR)
0.00
0.00
2.43
Wild Scenic Rivers Act Determination/Coordination
1.97
1.97
Wind Energy Evaluation Lease --Indian Lands
1.97
1.97
- Table 2. Median Months to Complete each Permit by Renewable Energy Infrastructure
Table 2. Median Months to Complete each Permit by Renewable Energy Infrastructure
Permit
Carbon Capture
Transmission
Energy Storage
Renewable Energy
Authorization and Certification
8.64
9.82
Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Permit
2.46
Business Resource Lease
7.43
Clean Water Act Section 402 Permit, National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (EPA)
30.39
DOD Mission Compatibility Evaluation Process, Part 211 of Title 32 CFR
4.01
Endangered Species Act Consultation (DOI-FWS)
8.61
5.03
6.18
Endangered Species Act Consultation (NOAA-NMFS)
2.94
13.67
Environmental Assessment (EA)
29.04
9.76
17.41
Environmental Impact Statement (EIS)
43.96
15.67
28.01
Lease of Power Privilege (DOI-BOR)
75.73
Loan Guarantee Program, Title XVII of EP Act 2005
25.10
Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act, Section 305 Essential Fish Habitat (EFH) Consultation
2.46
11.50
Marine Mammal Protection Act (MMPA) Incidental Take Authorization (DOC – NOAA/NMFS)
27.53
Migratory Bird Treaty Act permits
2.46
NPS Permit
32.36
Non-Federal Hydropower Licenses
48.82
47.75
Obstruction Lighting and Marking Authorization
3.19
Outer Continental Shelf (OCS) Air Permit
31.85
Right-of-Way Authorization (DOD)
23.62
Right-of-Way Authorization (DOI-BIA)
17.81
Right-of-Way Authorization (DOI-BLM)
88.90
63.75
80.28
Right-of-Way Authorization (DOI-FWS)
8.44
Safe Drinking Water Act, Underground Injection Control (UIC)
26.09
Section 10 Rivers and Harbors Act of 1899 and Section 404 Clean Water Act
3.94
16.95
Section 10 of the Rivers and Harbors Act of 1899
10.68
15.15
Section 106 Review
23.80
48.34
29.11
Section 404 Clean Water Act
6.85
35.55
10.02
Section 404 Clean Water Act, Section 10 Rivers and Harbors Act of 1899, and Section 103 Marine Protection, Research, and Sanctuaries Act
2.99
14.95
Section 408 Permit
10.15
16.10
Special Use Permit (FS)
75.06
49.38
Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement (EIS)
11.66
Use Authorization (DOI-BOR)
35.02
32.95
Wild Scenic Rivers Act Determination/Coordination
2.43
Wind Energy Evaluation Lease --Indian Lands
1.97
- Table 3. Average Number of Concurrent Permits by Project Sector
Table 3. Average Number of Concurrent Permits by Project Sector
Project Sector
# Permits
# Concurrent Permits
Ratio of Total Permits to Concurrent Permits
Aviation
2.62
1.44
1.82
Broadband
7.24
4.22
1.72
Carbon Capture and Sequestration
1.00
1.00
1.00
Conventional Energy Production
6.11
2.36
2.59
Electricity Transmission
6.36
2.66
2.39
Energy Storage
6.17
3.68
1.68
Manufacturing
5.00
3.51
1.43
Mining
4.19
2.22
1.89
Other Infrastructure
4.00
1.16
3.45
Pipelines
8.43
5.02
1.68
Ports and Waterways
7.44
3.23
2.30
Renewable Energy Production
8.08
4.51
1.79
Surface Transportation
3.57
1.43
2.49
Water Resources
5.72
2.68
2.13
- Table 4. Average Number of Concurrent Permits by Project Sector without NEPA
Table 4. Average Number of Concurrent Permits by Project Sector without NEPA
Project Sector
# Permits
# Concurrent Permits
Ratio of Total Permits to Concurrent Permits
Aviation
1.94
1.21
1.60
Broadband
6.44
4.30
1.50
Carbon Capture and Sequestration
1.00
1.00
1.00
Conventional Energy Production
5.57
2.08
2.68
Electricity Transmission
5.57
2.34
2.38
Energy Storage
5.00
3.63
1.38
Manufacturing
4.00
2.81
1.42
Mining
3.28
1.94
1.69
Other
3.00
1.00
3.00
Pipelines
7.67
4.59
1.67
Ports and Waterways
6.63
3.08
2.15
Renewable Energy Production
7.36
4.33
1.70
Surface Transportation
3.47
1.34
2.59
Water Resources
4.84
2.93
1.65