Minimum Functional Requirements and Implementation Paths

In order to reach these four standards of 21st-century environmental review and permitting service delivery, agencies should develop and implement the following ten fundamental capabilities:

Implement data standards
Application data sharing
Automated project screening
Access to screening criteria
Automated case management tools
Integrated GIS analysis tools
Improved document management
Automated comment compilation and analysis
Administrative record management
Adopt common or interoperable agency services

These ten capabilities represent the minimum functional requirements agencies will need in order to accelerate innovation in NEPA and permitting technology specifically, though they do not address other requirements for effective service delivery in general (e.g., cybersecurity, cloud architecture, IT governance). If implemented, these capabilities will help enable agencies to digitize, automate, and scale efficient and effective services for their staff, project proponents, and the public. Conversely, agencies that fail to adopt and implement these capabilities will likely face barriers to reaching modern technological capacity and functionality.

The capabilities are described below in the context of a functional maturity model2 starting with “foundational capabilities” and progressing to “leading-edge practices.” CEQ created this maturity model of minimum functional requirements to serve as a roadmap for agencies as they modernize their NEPA and permitting technology systems and work to create a unified interagency permitting and environmental review data system. Agencies should work to achieve “leading-edge practices” for all ten capabilities. However, depending on a given agency’s existing technological capabilities, they may be more or less advanced along this maturity model for a given capability. Accordingly, the precise nature of the steps and sequence of actions necessary to implement this Permitting Technology Action Plan will differ from agency to agency. As discussed in the Implementation Roadmap and Timeline section, agencies will develop implementation plans to achieve the leading-edge functionality in each of the minimum functional requirements, or where not applicable, explain why this is the case. Wherever possible, CEQ encourages agencies to jointly develop tools, share codebases and configurations layers, and use shared services to expedite the creation of a unified system.

In implementing the Presidential Memorandum and this Permitting Technology Action Plan, CEQ will provide policy leadership and guidance to assist agencies in delivering a unified government-wide interagency environmental review and permitting data system. Development of such a system will consider important issues, including the sensitivity of certain information managed by agencies. Such a unified system will be achieved through decentralized interconnected agency systems and, in some cases may be most effectively accomplished through centralized shared services such as a common applicant portal or a data store (see capability 10 below). Achieving a unified and interoperable system will require all agencies to adopt and sustain many, if not all, of the leading-edge practices described below. Within the framework described herein and as appropriate, properly marked sensitive data received from applicants will be protected from public disclosure and improper utilization by AI.

CEQ has identified the following ten minimum functional requirements that will enable agencies to achieve the service delivery standards for modern NEPA and permitting technology discussed above:

1. Implement Data Standards

Data standards for environmental reviews and permitting enable all aspects of efficient review systems. CEQ has issued an initial NEPA and Permitting Data and Technology Standard as part of this Permitting Technology Action Plan. This data and technology standard provides a common government-wide approach to structuring data associated with NEPA and permitting processes. The data and technology standard is designed around NEPA concepts and context, but it is meant to encompass permitting and other authorization processes as well. Future versions of the data and technology standard may be modified with lessons learned as agencies apply the standard outside the NEPA context. Agencies are encouraged to specify additional data and information requirements for their own agency-specific processes and requirements.

These data standards will support interoperability between systems; increase data visibility and usability; provide a framework for structuring documents for technology-enabled review; and define information or steps required to conduct reviews. In particular, the data standards form the basis for interoperable systems by enabling common Application Programming Interfaces (APIs), a common mechanism for applications and databases to exchange machine-readable information. Each agency’s adoption of this data standard, through mapping and aligning agency system architecture, is an essential first step for successfully deploying the rest of the minimum functional requirements described below.

Implementation Path for Data Standards

Diagram showing the three stages of the maturity model for implementing data standards. Progresses from foundational where all relevant entities and data standards concepts are mapped, to leading edge where systems and read and write data aligned to the data standards via API.

Enabling automated transfer of relevant environmental review and permit application data among all agencies that may need to issue authorizations, undertake analyses, or otherwise be involved in government actions necessary to review, facilitate, or authorize a given project will significantly improve the efficiency and effectiveness of environmental reviews. Even in cases where a Federal agency is the project sponsor, such as with Federally-managed lands and infrastructure, that agency will still benefit from using application data sharing to transmit environmental review and permit-related data with other agencies and offices involved in the project review. Application data can be easily and securely shared through a well-designed common application portal; alternatively, such data can also be shared through a “no-wrong-door” approach, where only relevant data moves to appropriate systems through automated mechanisms such as APIs- regardless of which agency initially received the information.

Diagram showing the three stages of the maturity model for implementing application data sharing. Progresses from foundational where a web-based interface is used to upload relevant information in a static file, to leading edge where systems can automatically transfer application or case data to and from other agencies or shared services.

3. Automated Project Screening

Agencies should develop modern project screening systems that assist frontline staff as they complete complex and currently time-consuming processes. These include reviewing applicant-provided information for completeness and accuracy, making subject matter expert determinations, and screening project data against pre-defined geospatial data layers and decision logic. Such systems can: assist agency staff in rapidly determining whether a categorical exclusion, programmatic consultation, or general permit applies to an action; automate the creation of a project administrative record; and promote consistency and accuracy in review methodology. If further review is needed, a leading-edge system could also initiate a workflow to advance the application to the next level of review. It could also inform modifications to an action to allow it to proceed under a categorical exclusion, programmatic consultation, or general permit under applicable laws.

Implementation Path for Automated Project Screening

Diagram showing the three stages of the maturity model for implementing automated project screening. Progresses from foundational where agencies developed review support tools for simple reviews with defined decision logic, to leading edge where these systems can be integrated with application intake portals and support more complex reviews.

4. Access to Screening Criteria

Agencies should develop decision models for environmental review and permitting processes and make publicly available the criteria used in making decisions in a standardized format, such as decision model notation (DMN), to facilitate the development of improved tools outside of government that can inform project siting decisions. Decision criteria used by Federal agencies in screening tools for conducting analysis or project design can be valuable information for project sponsors and private sector service providers looking to inform the development of initial project proposals and permit applications.

As Federal agencies build screening tools, they should publish the underlying decision models, an inventory of geospatial data layers used, and other structured data sources. This information will enable project sponsors and private sector service providers to design and propose projects with fewer potential impacts. Sharing decision models will also assist with the development of increasingly complex systems that could integrate multiple agency processes and provide agencies that have not yet developed an automated project screening tool with a shared resource to use as a starting point. Project sponsors relying on agency-validated decision models and geospatial data layers can better evaluate proposals and mitigate impacts during site selection and planning phases, which can in turn accelerate Federal reviews and reduce the likelihood of required design changes during reviews.

Implementation Path for Access to Screening Criteria

Diagram showing the three stages of the maturity model for implementing access to screening criteria. Progresses from foundational where decision logic is publicly available, to leading edge where systems for automated project screening are integrated with application intake portals and screening criteria and GIS data are made available by API.

5. Automated Case Management Tools

It is critical for agencies to enhance how they track the events, tasks, and rules that underlie environmental review and permitting processes. Some agencies currently implement detailed case management systems that track progress and tasks over time; but many agencies rely on spreadsheets, email, phone, or other “manual” processes for conducting and managing reviews. Modern case management relies on an underlying “event store,” or repository of relevant data and metadata that enables advanced tracking, reporting, and optimization. Agencies should implement case management systems that aid workflows and produce interoperable event, task, or other milestone data artifacts. These functions are essential to agencies as they evaluate current processes, track key metrics and performance, and pilot improvement interventions.

Implementation Path for Automated Case Management Tools

Diagram showing the three stages of the maturity model for implementing automated case management tools. Progresses from foundational where case management systems can track high level milestones, to leading edge where case management systems are interoperable among agencies.

6. Integrated GIS Analysis Tools

Environmental review and permitting processes rely on up-to-date and accurate geospatial information to inform agency decision-making. While environmental impacts vary based on the type of project being reviewed, the location of the project also is important in assessing a project’s potential impact and what reviews or permits might be applicable. Many systems in the environmental review and permitting software ecosystem interact with, process, display, or store some form of geospatial data. Implementing modern GIS systems can also reduce staff burden by enabling automated review and avoiding duplicative analysis. For example, the Environmental Protection Agency maintains the NEPAssist tool which can cross-reference an input project location (i.e., a drawn polygon or other spatial boundary) against over 50 pre-defined data layers covering resources such as air, water, habitat, and floodplains.

Federal agencies should collaborate on identifying and sharing the most commonly used geospatial data layers and models for each resource analyzed as part of an environmental review, permit-related analysis, or for a given study area, subject to restrictions associated with protected data. This collaboration should take into account the need for ongoing curation of geospatial data, definition of authoritative datasets, identification of data gaps, and other considerations. Well-defined and updated geospatial data layers will assist with the development of tools that can expedite reviews, adoption of existing analyses, and exchange of relevant planning-related information among agencies and with project sponsors.

Implementation Path for Integrated GIS Analysis Tools

Diagram showing the three stages of the maturity model for implementing integrated GIS analysis tools. Progresses from foundational where expert users maintain their own inventory of GIS layers and analyses, to leading edge where common datasets and tools are available by API and integrated into automated analysis tools.

7. Improved Document Management

Environmental review and permitting processes can generate large amounts of documentation; some of which is highly technical in nature, and much of which is supported by geospatial information and complex analysis. The current documentation process results in agencies packaging this complex information into a PDF or similar static file format, without providing access to the native file type or original data structure used in the analysis (e.g., geospatial data layers, model variables and outputs). Agencies can improve upon these existing practices by preserving metadata associated with geospatial analysis conducted as part of a review (i.e., a shapefile defining the geographic extent of the area analyzed for each resource category along with reference to the geospatial data layers used in the analysis). Similarly, for modeling and other analysis conducted in support of an environmental review or permitting process, agencies should preserve a machine-readable version of such analysis to assist with topic-based exploration, adoption or reliance on existing analyses for future reviews, preserving computational notebooks and datasets in their native format if applicable. Designing data structures and document management systems with machine-readable data in mind will enable AI analysis of existing studies and unlock future innovations in drafting support and knowledge discovery in older documents or datasets. Agencies should think of environmental review and permitting document content as structured data and build systems that can enable collaboration with other agencies, AI tools, and other data.

Implementation Path for Improved Document Management

Diagram showing the three stages of the maturity model for implementing improved document management. Progresses from foundational where documents are maintained by agencies in agency-specific collaboration environments and enriched with consistent metadata, to leading edge where documents are managed in shared collaboration environmental across agencies, with AI integration and support.

8. Automated Comment Compilation and Analysis

For required public comment processes, agencies have a variety of methods for requesting, storing, reviewing, and responding to comments from the public. Although there is significant experience in analyzing comments using natural language processing (NLP), there is also significant potential for AI tools to assist with comment analysis. Comment processing, from submission to analysis and response, is a function that could benefit from common or shared services and platforms. While many agencies currently use Regulations.gov and the Federal Docket Management System to accept and process comments, agencies should have access to robust shared services for comment categorization and response that handle the lifecycle of comment submission, analysis, categorization, and response with AI support (where such support is appropriate and legally authorized).

Implementation Path for Automated Comment Compilated and Analysis

Diagram showing the three stages of the maturity model for implementing automated comment compilation and analysis. Progresses from foundational where agencies test analyzing comments with natural language processing, to leading edge where agencies use a centralized shared service to support end-to-end comment review and analysis process.

9. Administrative Record Management

Retrieving applicant- and agency-generated documents that supported an environmental review or permit decision are required for a variety of purposes, including compliance with the applicable federal records requirements and responding to Freedom of Information Act requests or legal challenges of agency decisions. For example, in litigation, storing and retrieving information that makes up the administrative record should be an efficient process that is automated throughout the analysis and document development process. Implementing data standards and modern systems can enable agencies to easily maintain both portable document formats and data-rich repositories accessible by machine and human users.

Implementation Path for Administrative Record Management

Diagram showing the three stages of the maturity model for implementing administrative record management. Progresses from foundational where agencies use manual processes to file PDFs in central repositories, to leading edge where materials are generated automatically from agency decision support tools and available in machine-readable formats.

10. Adopt Common or Interoperable Agency Services

The typical process for building and operating environmental review and permitting software systems relies on a patchwork of technology stacks, ranging from low-code platforms with varying capability to custom-built, legacy systems that lack modern architecture or resilience. Agencies should investigate and increasingly invest in commercial-grade enterprise systems that allow for integration of shared services, shared applications, and common user experiences—while promoting data transparency and meeting or exceeding the latest security standards.

Implementation Path for Common or Interoperable Agency Services

Diagram showing the three stages of the maturity model for common or interoperable agency services. Progresses from foundational where agencies have begun consolidating and connecting platforms, to leading edge where the majority of NEPA and permitting services are integrated or provided through shared services.

Download the full Permitting Technology Action Plan