Editors' Summary: NEPA, the premier U.S. environmental protection statute, was intended to confront questions of risk, harm, and uncertainty by requiring an EA before beginning certain projects. Following such assessments, project proponents may also have to prepare an EIS to identify and consider alternatives that may result in less harm to the environment. Over time, the line between EAs and EIS became blurred, resulting in an increase in documents known as EAs with a mitigated "finding of no significant impact." In this Article, Rachael Rawlins explains the characteristics of these documents and how they have degraded NEPA and the protection it offers.