NEPA and CEQA: Comparisons and Contrasts

NEPA and CEQA are similar laws with a common purpose: examining and weighing the potential environmental consequences of proposed government actions before such actions are undertaken.


National Environmental Policy Act

The National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA) requires federal agencies to assess the possible environmental consequences of projects which they propose to undertake, fund, or approve. Under NEPA, closure of a military base usually requires preparation of an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS).

The process of preparing an EIS is as follows: A Draft EIS contains the following basic components: A Final EIS will include all of the above as well as incorporate or otherwise respond to the substantive comments received on the draft EIS from the public and other agencies.

The 1994 Defense Authorization Act requires DoD to complete its EIS within 12 months after receiving a community's reuse plan. The reuse plan will comprise the preferred alternative and a single NEPA document will be prepared for both disposal and reuse. However, if no community reuse plan is available before the draft EIS is prepared, the advance scoping and related information will become the basis for completion of the EIS. In this situation, the involved DoD service will devise the preferred reuse plan alternative as well as the other alternatives to be evaluated.


California Environmental Quality Act

The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) requires State and local public agencies to consider the environmental consequences of projects which they undertake, fund, or permit. Under CEQA, an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) is usually required for a major plan or project. This may include the base reuse plan, prepared by the local base reuse entity, particularly if it forms the basis for a general plan amendment, specific plan, or redevelopment plan. Even if the base reuse plan is not prepared to serve as a state-required plan, it may nevertheless benefit the reuse entity to subject it to an EIR to establish it as the basis for environmental review of future projects.

After an initial study and preliminary consultation or scoping have been completed and the decision is made to prepare an EIR, the process is as follows: The CEQA Guidelines provide that the lead agency may determine the particular format of the EIR it prepares (Guidelines Section 15120). Within this flexible approach, the required contents of a Draft EIR are as follows: The Final EIR will include comments received on the draft and the lead agency's responses to those comments. It must also include a list of the organizations and individuals which commented on the draft.

Upon approving a project for which an EIR has been prepared, the lead agency must make findings relative to each of the mitigation measures pursuant to Guidelines Section 15091. These findings state whether the agency is imposing the mitigation measure, the measure is the responsibility of another agency which can and will impose it, or there are economic, social or other reasons why the mitigation measures and project alternatives are infeasible. Further, if the EIR has identified any significant environmental impacts which cannot be mitigated or avoided, the agency must make a "statement of overriding considerations" which describes the specific benefits of the project which outweigh its unavoidable environmental effects (Guidelines Section 15093).

Figure 2 compares the major features of EIS and EIRs, respectively.


Commonalities and Contrasts

As can be seen from the above discussion, there are many similarities between NEPA and CEQA processes, and between an EIS and an EIR. For instance, the federal NOI is analogous to the State NOP; the federal Notice of Availability performs the same function as the State Notice of Completion; both processes offer the opportunity for other agencies and the public to comment on the environmental document; and the required contents of an EIS are largely the same as those required of an EIR.

Nonetheless, there are also differences. For instance, EIS scoping and notice requirements are, understandably, oriented toward federal agencies and include State and local agencies and groups as necessary. CEQA requires public notice to be published in a local newspaper or otherwise provided locally. Under NEPA, the project and a range of alternatives to the project are examined at the same level of detail (i.e., the proposal is seen as one of several alternatives). CEQA does not require alternatives to be examined in as great a detail as the project (i.e., alternatives are means of avoiding the impacts associated with the project). NEPA requires, as part of the discussion of each alternative, discussion of mitigation measures and growth inducing impacts. CEQA requires a separate discussion of these issues, focusing on the project. NEPA does not require the agency to adopt the mitigation measures identified in an EIS. CEQA mandates adoption unless a measure is found to be infeasible for specific reasons.

The text below summarizes these differences.


Comparison of EIS and EIR

Draft EIS contains:

Final EIS contains in addition:

Draft EIR contains:

Final EIR contains in addition: (Guidelines Section 15132)


Despite their minor differences, both NEPA and CEQA are flexible enough that a single environmental document can be prepared which will comply with both. For local agencies, the primary consideration is ensuring that the EIS meets the basic requirements of CEQA. Later, when the local agency uses the EIS as an EIR, it will be responsible for making the findings and statement of overriding considerations required under Guidelines Sections 15091 and 15093, respectively.


Back to Table of Contents

Next: Preparing a Combined EIS/EIR


State of California
Governor's Office of Planning and Research
1400 Tenth Street
Sacramento, CA 95814
916-322-2318