This is the accessible text file for GAO report number GAO-13-221 
entitled 'Pipeline Permitting: Interstate and Intrastate Natural Gas 
Permitting Processes Include Multiple Steps, and Time Frames Vary' 
which was released on February 15, 2013. 

This text file was formatted by the U.S. Government Accountability 
Office (GAO) to be accessible to users with visual impairments, as 
part of a longer term project to improve GAO products' accessibility. 
Every attempt has been made to maintain the structural and data 
integrity of the original printed product. Accessibility features, 
such as text descriptions of tables, consecutively numbered footnotes 
placed at the end of the file, and the text of agency comment letters, 
are provided but may not exactly duplicate the presentation or format 
of the printed version. The portable document format (PDF) file is an 
exact electronic replica of the printed version. We welcome your 
feedback. Please E-mail your comments regarding the contents or 
accessibility features of this document to Webmaster@gao.gov. 

This is a work of the U.S. government and is not subject to copyright 
protection in the United States. It may be reproduced and distributed 
in its entirety without further permission from GAO. 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. 

United States Government Accountability Office: 
GAO: 

Report to Congressional Committees: 

February 2013: 

Pipeline Permitting: 

Interstate and Intrastate Natural Gas Permitting Processes Include 
Multiple Steps, and Time Frames Vary: 

GAO-13-221: 

GAO Highlights: 

Highlights of GAO-13-221, a report to congressional committees. 

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. 

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 post-authorization 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. 

What GAO Recommends: 

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. 

View [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-13-221]. For more 
information, contact Frank Rusco at (202) 512-3841 or ruscof@gao.gov. 

[End of section] 

Contents: 

Letter: 

Background: 

The Interstate and Intrastate Pipeline Permitting Processes Can be 
Complex, with Multiple Stakeholders and Steps: 

Time Frames for Interstate and Intrastate Pipeline Permitting 
Processes Vary Because of Multiple Factors: 

Natural Gas Pipeline Stakeholders Identified Management Practices to 
Improve the Permitting Process: 

Agency Comments and Our Evaluation: 

Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and Methodology: 

Appendix II: Comments from the Department of Agriculture: 

Appendix III: GAO Contacts and Staff Acknowledgments: 

Tables: 

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

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

Figures: 

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

Figure 2: FERC's Typical Steps in the Application Phase of the Natural 
Gas Pipeline Permitting Process: 

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: 

[End of section] 

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.[Footnote 1] 

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.[Footnote 2] 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 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),[Footnote 3] 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. 

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. 

Background: 

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. 

Distribution Network for Natural Gas Pipelines: 

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)[Footnote 4] estimates that there are 200,000 
miles of gas gathering pipelines in the United States. 

* Transmission pipelines. Transmission pipelines carry natural gas, 
sometimes across hundreds of miles, to communities and large-volume 
users (e.g., factories). These transmission pipelines have compressor 
stations located periodically along the pipeline to maintain 
pressure.[Footnote 5] PHMSA estimates there are more than 400,000 
miles of interstate and intrastate transmission pipelines in the 
United States. 

* Distribution pipelines. Gas distribution pipelines transport natural 
gas to residential, commercial, and industrial customers, splitting 
off from 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. 

Federal Environmental Laws That May Be Involved in the Pipeline 
Permitting Process: 

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. 
[Footnote 6] 

National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA).[Footnote 7] 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: 

* 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 
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. 

Clean Water Act.[Footnote 8] 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. 

Endangered Species Act.[Footnote 9] 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. 

National Historic Preservation Act.[Footnote 10] 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. 

Rivers and Harbors Act of 1899.[Footnote 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. 

Stakeholders That May Be Involved in the Pipeline Permitting Process: 

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. 
[Footnote 12] 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 facilitate the 
timely development of pipeline projects.[Footnote 13] 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. 

* 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: 

- 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 
cross federal lands.[Footnote 14] 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. 

- 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. 

- 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.[Footnote 
15] In cases where the pipeline only crosses National Forest System 
lands, the Forest Service issues a special-use authorization.[Footnote 
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-to-government 
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 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. 

The Interstate and Intrastate Pipeline Permitting Processes Can be 
Complex, with Multiple Stakeholders and Steps: 

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 post-
authorization 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. 

The Interstate Permitting Process Involves Three Phases, and 
Stakeholders Report It Is Consistent because It Has a Lead Agency: 

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. 

Pre-filing Phase: 

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 figure 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 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.[Footnote 17] 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. 

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

[Refer to PDF for image: process illustration] 

Pre-filling phase: 

1. FERC approves pre-filling and contacts cooperating agencies. 
Scoping process begins. 

2. Applicant holds open house(s). 

3. FERC issues Notice of Intent for the preparation of EIS or EA. 

4. FERC holds NEPA scoping meeting(s) and consults with cooperating 
agencies to deal with environmental issues. 

Source: GAO. 

[End of figure] 

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. 

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. 

Application Phase: 

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 
figure 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 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. 

Figure 2: FERC's Typical Steps in the Application Phase of the Natural 
Gas Pipeline Permitting Process: 

[Refer to PDF for image: process illustration] 

Application phase: 

1. Pipeline company submits application. 

2. FERC issues Notice of Application. 

3. FERC consults with cooperating agencies; Scoping process beings[A]. 

4. FERC and cooperating agencies work together to prepare EIS or EA: 
EIS: 
* FERC provides preliminary draft EIS to cooperating agencies for 
review; 
* Draft EIS issued and comment period begins; 
* FERC holds public meeting(s); 
* FERC responds to comments and may revise EIS; 
* FERC issues final EIS; 
EA: 
* FERC provides preliminary draft EA to cooperating agencies for 
review; 
* FERC issues EA and may open comment period; 
* FERC responds to comments in the Commission Order. 

5. FERC issues order approving or denying certificate. 

Source: GAO. 

[A] These steps have already taken place for those natural gas 
pipeline projects that began the permitting process with the pre-
filing phase. 

[End of figure] 

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, 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, required under 
Section 401 of the Clean Water Act, and Consistency Concurrences, 
under the Coastal Zone Management Act.[Footnote 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 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 
construction of some pipelines if the project meets certain criteria. 
[Footnote 19] 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. 

* 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. 

* 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. 

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

Federal: 

Permit, license, approval, or certification: Certificate of Public 
Convenience and Necessity; 
Administering agency: FERC. 

Permit, license, approval, or certification: Section 404 General 
Permit; 
Administering agency: Corps. 

Permit, license, approval, or certification: Section 7 Threatened and 
Endangered Species Clearance; 
Administering agency: FWS. 

State: 

Permit, license, approval, or certification: 401 Water Quality 
Certification; 
Administering agency: Pennsylvania Department of Environmental 
Protection. 

Permit, license, approval, or certification: Water Obstruction and 
Encroachment Permits; 
Administering agency: Pennsylvania Department of Environmental 
Protection. 

Permit, license, approval, or certification: National Pollutant 
Discharge Eliminations System (NPDES)--Hydrostatic Test Water 
Discharge General Permit (PAG-10) or Individual Permit; 
Administering agency: Pennsylvania Department of Environmental 
Protection. 

Permit, license, approval, or certification: NPDES Individual Permit 
for Construction Activities; 
Administering agency: Pennsylvania Department of Environmental 
Protection. 

Permit, license, approval, or certification: Concurrence of Exemption 
from Plan Approval; 
Administering agency: Pennsylvania Department of Environmental 
Protection. 

Permit, license, approval, or certification: Submerged Land License 
Agreement; 
Administering agency: Pennsylvania Department of Environmental 
Protection. 

Permit, license, approval, or certification: Chapter 110 Water 
Withdrawal and Use Registration; 
Administering agency: Pennsylvania Department of Environmental 
Protection. 

Permit, license, approval, or certification: Highway Occupancy Permit; 
Administering agency: Pennsylvania Department of Transportation. 

Permit, license, approval, or certification: Stream Crossings 
consultation; 
Administering agency: Pennsylvania Fish and Boat Commission. 

Permit, license, approval, or certification: Clearance (Rare Species); 
Administering agency: Pennsylvania Department of Natural Resources. 

Permit, license, approval, or certification: Clearance (Cultural 
Resources); 
Administering agency: Pennsylvania Historical and Museum Commission. 

Permit, license, approval, or certification: Water Allocation Permit; 
Administering agency: Susquehanna River Basin Commission. 

Local: 

Permit, license, approval, or certification: Erosion and Sedimentation 
Control Plan Review; 
Administering agency: County Conservation District. 

Source: FERC. 

[End of table] 

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.[Footnote 20] 
According to representatives of 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. 

Post-authorization Phase: 

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. 

The Intrastate Permitting Process Varies by State, and Most States We 
Reviewed Do Not Use a Lead Agency: 

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. 

Siting Authority: 

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: California; 
State agency that issues siting permit: None; 
Intrastate pipeline siting process: 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. 

State: Colorado; 
State agency that issues siting permit: None; 
Intrastate pipeline siting process: 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. 

State: Delaware; 
State agency that issues siting permit: None; 
Intrastate pipeline siting process: 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. 

State: Florida; 
State agency that issues siting permit: Florida Department of 
Environmental Protection; 
Intrastate pipeline siting process: 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. 

State: New York; 
State agency that issues siting permit: New York State Public Service 
Commission; 
Intrastate pipeline siting process: 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. 

State: North Dakota; 
State agency that issues siting permit: North Dakota Public Service 
Commission; 
Intrastate pipeline siting process: 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. 

State: Oklahoma; 
State agency that issues siting permit: None; 
Intrastate pipeline siting process: 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. 

State: Pennsylvania; 
State agency that issues siting permit: None; 
Intrastate pipeline siting process: According to officials from the 
Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection and the 
Pennsylvania Public Utility Commission, no state agency has siting 
authority in Pennsylvania. 

State: Rhode Island; 
State agency that issues siting permit: Energy Facility Siting Board; 
Intrastate pipeline siting process: 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. 

State: Texas; 
State agency that issues siting permit: None; 
Intrastate pipeline siting process: 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. 

State: Vermont; 
State agency that issues siting permit: Vermont Public Service Board; 
Intrastate pipeline siting process: 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. 

[End of table] 

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 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. 

Environmental Review: 

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. 

Time Frames for Interstate and Intrastate Pipeline Permitting 
Processes Vary Because of Multiple Factors: 

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: 

* 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.[Footnote 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 
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.[Footnote 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"[Footnote 23]--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. 

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 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. 

* 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. 

Natural Gas Pipeline Stakeholders Identified Management Practices to 
Improve the Permitting Process: 

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.[Footnote 24] 
Stakeholders we spoke with and the administration, in its plan for 
implementing the executive order, identified the following management 
practices as effective, among others: 

* 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 
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 
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 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. 

Agency Comments and Our Evaluation: 

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 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 [hyperlink, 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. 

Signed by: 

Frank Rusco: 
Director: 
Natural Resources and Environment: 

[End of section] 

Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and Methodology: 

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. 
[Footnote 25] 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. 

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: 

* size of pipeline network (miles of pipe); 

* 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 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. 

[End of section] 

Appendix II: Comments from the Department of Agriculture: 

USDA: 
United States Department of Agriculture: 
Forest Service: 
Washington Office: 
1409 Independence Avenue, SW: 
Washington, DC 20250: 

File Code: 1420: 

January 25, 2013: 

Mr. Frank Rusco: 
Director, Natural Resources and Environment: 
U.S. Government Accountability Office: 
441 G. Street, N.W. 
Washington, DC 20548: 

Dear Mr. Rusco: 

Thank you for the opportunity to review and provide comment on the 
draft U. S. Government Accountability Office (GAO) Report on "Pipeline 
Permitting: Interstate and Intrastate Natural Gas Permitting Processes 
Include Multiple Steps, and Time Frames Vary" (GAO-13-22). The Forest 
Service has reviewed the draft report and concurs with its findings. 
The report makes no recommendations. 

As noted in the report, the USDA is one of nine Federal agency 
signatories to the 2002, 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. The interagency agreement and Forest 
Service policy have worked successfully to ensure a consistent 
approach to authorizing interstate natural gas pipelines. The Forest 
Service also concurs with the finding that timeframes for processing 
vary based on numerous factors including the scope and scale of the 
project proposed and the environmental and historic resources that may 
he affected. 

The Forest Service also concurs that the intrastate permit process is 
less consistent, primarily due to the variability of state 
requirements. However, the Forest Service works to collaborate with 
States in the environmental review process when there is a federal 
nexus, such as when a Forest Service permit is required. When the 
pipeline crosses more than one federal agency's land, there is a 
coordinated federal permit process with the Bureau of Land Management. 

The GAO report also notes that agencies should offer industry the 
opportunity to pay for contract support and or agency staff time. The 
Forest Service has regulations in place that require industry to cover 
agency costs to process pipeline requests. The Forest Service 
frequently utilizes the services of a contractor paid for by industry. 
The USDA, through the Forest Service, remains committed to an open 
permitting process, public and stakeholder engagement to support our 
nation's energy needs. 

Thank you for the opportunity to review the draft report. If you have 
any questions, please contact Thelma Strong, Chief Financial Officer, 
at 202-205-1321 or tstrong@fs.fed.us. 

Sincerely, 

Signed by: 

Thomas. L. Tidwell: 
Chief: 

[End of section] 

Appendix III: GAO Contacts and Staff Acknowledgments: 

GAO Contact: 

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

Acknowledgments: 

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. 

[End of section] 

Footnotes: 

[1] Department of Energy, Secretary of Energy Advisory Board, Shale 
Gas Production Subcommittee 90-Day Report (Washington, D.C.: 2011). 

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

[3] We spoke with Corps regulatory officials in headquarters and five 
district offices: Baltimore, Fort Worth, Jacksonville, Philadelphia, 
and Sacramento. 

[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. 

[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). 

[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. 

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

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

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

[12] A 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). 

[13] 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, the Interior, and Transportation; 
the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation; EPA; and the White 
House Council on Environmental Quality. 

[14] BLM 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. 

[15] Issuance 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. 

[16] Most 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. 

[17] For 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. 

[18] Coastal 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). 

[19] The 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. 

[20] FERC, 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. 

[21] According 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. 

[22] For 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. 

[23] The 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). 

[24] Executive Order No. 13604, Improving Performance of Federal 
Permitting and Review of Infrastructure Projects (Mar. 22, 2012). 

[25] 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. 

[End of section] 

GAO’s Mission: 

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. 

Obtaining Copies of GAO Reports and Testimony: 

The fastest and easiest way to obtain copies of GAO documents at no 
cost is through GAO’s website [hyperlink, 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 [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov] and select 
“E-mail Updates.” 

Order by Phone: 

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, [hyperlink, 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: 

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 [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov]. 

To Report Fraud, Waste, and Abuse in Federal Programs: 

Contact: 
Website: [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/fraudnet/fraudnet.htm]; 
E-mail: fraudnet@gao.gov; 
Automated answering system: (800) 424-5454 or (202) 512-7470. 

Congressional Relations: 

Katherine Siggerud, Managing Director, siggerudk@gao.gov: 
(202) 512-4400: 
U.S. Government Accountability Office: 
441 G Street NW, Room 7125: 
Washington, DC 20548. 

Public Affairs: 
Chuck Young, Managing Director, youngc1@gao.gov: 
(202) 512-4800: 
U.S. Government Accountability Office: 
441 G Street NW, Room 7149: 
Washington, DC 20548. 

[End of document]