Guidelines and Techniques for Improving the NEPA Process

/ The Council on Environmental Quality's (CEQ's) principal aims in implementing the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) are (1) to reduce paperwork, (2) to avoid delay, and most importantly (3) to produce better decisions that protect, restore, and enhance the environment. This paper presents four strategies for improving the NEPA process along with tools that can be used to implement each strategy. The tools include guidelines for project management and problem definition, tips for acquiring existing information and identifying issues of public concern, worksheets on how to identify and analyze potential impacts on resources, ideas for enhancing NEPA documents, and a NEPA process checklist. The tools can be used at various stages of the NEPA process and provide a toolbox of guidelines and techniques to improve implementation of the NEPA process by focusing the pertinent information for decisionmakers and stakeholders. KEY WORDS: National Environmental Policy Act; NEPA; Environmental impact assessment; Ecosystem management     

REAUTHORIZING THE CLEAN WATER ACT: LOOKING TO TANGIBLE VALUES1

ABSTRACT: The degree of progress achieved under the 1972 Clean Water Act is reviewed by reference to traditional measures of program implementation, and to evidence of tangible, or “real-world” progress, such as beach closures, drinking water contamination, fishing bans and advisories, species health, and habitat degradation. Significant progress has been made in reducing pollution from point sources, but large point source releases of toxic and other pollutants remain. Little progress has been made in addressing runoff pollution, and in protecting aquatic habitats. Clean Water Act reauthorization should focus on pollution prevention to reduce further the release of toxics by point sources, a new program of mandatory but flexible controls on sources of runoff, and watershed protection programs to promote habitat protection and restoration. Economic factors should be considered in Clean Water Act programs, but must be balanced against scientific and governmental factors as well.     

The US Clean Water Act and habitat replacement: evaluation of mitigation sites in Orange County,California, USA

Both permit requirements and ecological assessments have been used to evaluate mitigation success. This analysis combines these two approaches to evaluate mitigation required under Section 404 of the United States Clean Water Act (CWA) and Section 10 of the Rivers and Harbors Act, which allow developers to provide compensatory mitigation for unavoidable impacts to wetlands. This study reviewed permit files and conducted field assessments of mitigation sites to evaluate the effectiveness of mitigation required by the US Army Corps of Engineers for all permits issued in Orange County, California from 1979 through 1993. The 535 permit actions approved during this period allowed 157 ha of impacts. Mitigation was required on 70 of these actions, with 152 ha of enhanced, restored, and created habitat required for 136 ha of impacts. In 15 permit actions, no mitigation project was constructed, but in only two cases was the originally permitted project built; the two cases resulted in an unmitigated loss of 1.6 ha. Of the remaining 55 sites, 55% were successful at meeting the permit conditions while 11% failed to do so. Based on a qualitative assessment of habitat quality, only 16% of the sites could be considered successful and 26% were considered failures. Thus, of the 126 ha of habitat lost due to the 55 projects, only 26 ha of mitigation was considered successful. The low success rate was not due to poor enforcement, although nearly half of the projects did not comply with all permit conditions. Mitigation success could best be improved by requiring mitigation plans to have performance standards based on habitat functions.     

Trends and patterns in section 404 permitting requiring compensatory mitigation in Oregon and Washington,USA

The effects of permitting decisions made under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act for which compensatory mitigation was required were examined. Information was compiled on permits issued in Oregon (January 1977–January 1987) and Washington (1980–1986). Data on the type of project permitted, wetland impacted, and mitigation project were collected and analyzed. The records of the Portland and Seattle District Offices of the US Army Corps of Engineers and of Environmental Protection Agency Region X were the primary sources of information. The 58 permits issued during the years of concern in Oregon document impacts to 82 wetlands and the creation of 80. The total area of wetland impacted was 74 ha while 42 ha were created, resulting in a net loss of 32 ha or 43%. The 35 permits issued in Washington document impacts to 72 wetlands and the creation of 52. The total area of wetland impacted was 61 ha while 45 ha were created, resulting in a net loss of 16 ha or 26%. In both states, the number of permits requiring compensation increased with time. The area of the impacted and created wetlands tended to be ≤0.40 ha. Permitted activity occurred primarily west of the Cascade Mountains and in the vicinity of urban centers. Estuarine and palustrine wetlands were impacted and created most frequently. The wetland types created most often were not always the same as those impacted; therefore, local gains and losses of certain types occurred. In both states the greatest net loss in area was in freshwater marshes. This study illustrates how Section 404 permit data might be used in managing a regional wetland resource. However, because the data readily available were either incomplete or of poor quality, the process of gathering information was very labor intensive. Since similar analyses would be useful to resource managers and scientists from other areas, development of an up-to-date standardized data base is recommended.     

INCENTIVE-BASED NONPOINT SOURCE POLLUTION ABATEMENT IN A REAUTHORIZED CLEAN WATER ACT1

ABSTRACT: This paper summarizes key provisions of the Clinton Administration's proposals for change in the Clean Water Act. Two of the important themes for change are tougher controls for non-point source pollution and the use of market-based instruments. A detailed analysis of market-based abatement suggests limited potential for reducing costs. The keys to nonpoint source pollution control are clearer definition of property rights combined with changes in government programs that encourage polluting activities.     

Compensatory Mitigation for Streams Under the Clean Water Act: Reassessing Science and Redirecting Policy1

Doyle, Martin W. and F. Douglas Shields, 2012. Compensatory Mitigation for Streams Under the Clean Water Act: Reassessing Science and Redirecting Policy. Journal of the American Water Resources Association (JAWRA) 48(3): 494-509. DOI: 10.1111/j.1752-1688.2011.00631.x Abstract: Current stream restoration science is not adequate to assume high rates of success in recovering ecosystem functional integrity. The physical scale of most stream restoration projects is insufficient because watershed land use controls ambient water quality and hydrology, and land use surrounding many restoration projects at the time of their construction, or in the future, do not provide sufficient conditions for functional integrity recovery. Reach scale channel restoration or modification has limited benefits within the broader landscape context. Physical habitat variables are often the basis for indicating success, but are now increasingly seen as poor surrogates for actual biological function; the assumption “if you build it they will come” lacks support of empirical studies. If stream restoration is to play a continued role in compensatory mitigation under the United States Clean Water Act, then significant policy changes are needed to adapt to the limitations of restoration science and the social environment under which most projects are constructed. When used for compensatory mitigation, stream restoration should be held to effectiveness standards for actual and measurable physical, chemical, or biological functional improvement. To achieve improved mitigation results, greater flexibility may be required for the location and funding of restoration projects, the size of projects, and the restoration process itself.     

CLEAN WATER ACT REAUTHORIZATION: HOW FAR HAVE WE COME?1

ABSTRACT: This paper first presents a brief review of an earlier effort to estimate the benefits associated with achieving the Clean Water Act objectives. It then discusses what would be involved in doing a retrospective benefit-cost analysis of the Clean Water Act and some information on changes in several measures of water quality over the past 20 years. The paper concludes with a summary of a recent effort to estimate the realized benefits associated with the Clean Water Act and some implications for policy. (KEY TERMS: benefits; benefit-cost analysis; costs; recreation; water pollution; water quality.)     

The eclipse of NEPA as Environmental Policy

Previous evaluations of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) have focused on the effectiveness of its procedural requirements in improving the quality of decision making with respect to environmental matters. Subsequent growth of other environmental regulation and the changing role of Environmental Impact Statements in the decision-making process should also be considered. The many federal and state environmental laws passed in the 1970s have, by defining the nature and acceptability of environmental impact and prohibiting unacceptable impacts, superseded the substantive role of NEPA in environmental protection. Although the EIS continues to serve as a focus for public debate regarding proposed government actions, such debates usually center around social or economic rather than environmental issues. NEPA has thus been superseded by other environmental laws, and its role in the decision-making process today has little relation to its earlier environmental significance.     

Including past and present impacts in cumulative impact assessments

Environmental concerns such as loss of biological diversity and stratospheric ozone depletion have heightened awareness of the need to assess cumulative impacts in environmental documents. More than 20 years of experience with the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) have provided analysts in the United States with opportunities for developing successful techniques to assess site-specific impacts of proposed actions. Methods for analyzing a proposed action's incremental contribution to cumulative impacts are generally less advanced than those for project-specific impacts.The President's Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) defines cumulative impact to include the impacts of past, present and reasonably foreseeable future actions regardless of who undertakes the action. Court decisions have helped clarify the distinction between reasonably foreseeable future actions and other possible future actions. This paper seeks to clarify how past and present impacts should be included in cumulative impact analyses.The definition of cumulative impacts implies that cumulative impact analyses should include the effects of all past and present actions on a particular resource. Including past and present impacts in cumulative impact assessments increases the likelihood of identifying significant impacts. NEPA requires agencies to give more consideration to alternatives and mitigation and to provide more opportunities for public involvement for actions that would have significant impacts than for actions that would not cause or contribute to significant impacts. For an action that would contribute to significant cumulative impacts, the additional cost and effort involved in increased consideration of alternatives and mitigation and in additional public involvement may be avoided if the action can be modified so that its contributions to significant cumulative impacts are eliminated.Managed by Lockheed Martin Energy Research Corporation under contract DE-AC05-84OR21400 with the US Department of Energy.     

Land Use Planning and Social Equity in North Carolina’s Compensatory Wetland and Stream Mitigation Programs

The U.S. Clean Water Act requires compensatory mitigation for wetland and stream damage through restoration of damaged aquatic ecosystems. We evaluate the North Carolina’s Ecosystem Enhancement Program (EEP), a state agency responsible for compensatory mitigation. We compare communities gaining and losing aquatic resources during mitigation, finding new types of socioeconomic disparities that contradict previous studies of mitigation program behavior. We find average distances between impact and mitigation sites for streams (43.53 km) and wetlands (50.3 km) to be larger in North Carolina than in off-site mitigation programs in other regions previously studied. We also find that aquatic resources in the State are lost from urbanized areas that are more affluent, white, and highly educated, and mitigated at sites in rural areas that are less affluent, less well educated, and have a higher percentage of minorities. We also analyze the relationship between urban growth indicators and EEP accumulation of compensation sites. Growth indicators and long-term population projections are uncorrelated with both projected transportation impacts and advance mitigation acquired by the EEP, suggesting that growth considerations can be more effectively incorporated into the EEP’s planning process. We explore the possibility that spatial mismatches could develop between watersheds that are rapidly growing and those that are gaining mitigation. We make recommendations for ways that regulators incorporate growth indicators into the mitigation planning process.     

A better rationale for wetland management

The present US Federal wetland management strategy under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act does not account for the differences in the natural values of wetlands and their different vulnerability to development pressure. The strategy, aimed at reducing the regulatory burden, provides for different levels of wetland protection, primarily by designating certain activities in or affecting wetlands as essentially harmless, having only minor impacts even when considered for their cumulative effects. Such activities are authorized under general permits precluding any evaluation of project impacts. A sounder, yet practical, rationale for wetland management and regulatory relief should be linked to the scarcity of certain wetland habitats, the habitat diversity or carrying capacity, the degree of degradation from past development, and the incremental losses already incurred within the same wetland ecosystem. The regulatory effort should be concentrated where these characteristics indicate high-value wetlands.Wetland impacts appear to fit into five basic orders of magnitude; these pertain to the relative cost and difficulty of impact mitigation. Up to 13 ecological and public-interest variables can modify the seriousness of the basic impact. Together, the basic orders of impact and modifying variables describe the theoretical framework for wetland management. However, a practical rationale for better wetland management must be constrained to factors not requiring a field investigation in advance of project planning for construction and development.This article was produced in part from work funded by the Office of Technology Assessment (OTA) of the United States Congress for use in its study, Wetlands: Their Use and Regulation. The views expressed do not necessarily represent those of OTA.     

RESOLUTION OF ENDANGERED SPECIES ACT ISSUES IN PERMITTING TILE PLATEAU CREEK PIPELINE1

ABSTRACT: This paper describes how a hydrologic model proved to be a valuable tool to help interested parties understand impacts to four threatened and endangered fish species in the Upper Colorado River. In 1994, the Ute Water Conservancy District initiated permitting and design of the Plateau Creek pipeline replacement. The project was considered a major Federal action and therefore subject to the National Environmental Policy Act. Under Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) entered the process to develop a Biological Opinion (BO) and determined that the project could potentially impact the endangered fish in the 15‐mile reach of the Colorado River. The Section 7 consultation was directed by a Core Committee comprised of stakeholders in the Upper Colorado River watershed. Hydrologic modeling became the evaluation tool for comparing flow reductions to USFWS target recovery flows and defining make‐up flow requirements to meet those targets. The Colorado River Recovery Implementation Program was designated to provide the make‐up flows. The USFWS released a final BO in December 1997, approving diversions through 2015. An Environmental Impact Statement for the project was completed and the Record of Decision was issued by the Bureau of Land Management in early 1998.     

EVALUATION OF CONSUMER NOTIFICATION UNDER THE SAFE DRINKING WATER ACT1

ABSTRACT: The Safe Drinking Water Act of 1974 as amended in 1986 requires that consumers be notified when maximum contaminant levels are exceeded in their community water supply and when prescribed testing and treatment procedures are not met. A review of communication theory indicates that for the message to be effective (1) it must be received by the intended audience, (2) it must be attended to by that audience, (3) it must be understood, and (4) it must be accepted and acted upon. A review and analysis of existing research evaluating notification programs administered under the Safe Drinking Water Act indicates (1) that receipt rates have been highly, variable, (2) that attention to the message has usually not been directly assessed, (3) that levels of understanding, while variable, have usually been minimal, and (4) that acceptance, though not often directly measured, seemed higher than expected. These results, while critical of past notification programs, indicate that understanding and acceptance can be increased if receipt and attention rates are increased. The paper concludes with a series of recommendations for improving receipt and attention rates, for increasing understanding, and, most importantly, for increasing acceptance and community action for upgrading local water treatment and quality.     

Determinants of Spatial and Temporal Patterns in Compensatory Wetland Mitigation

Development projects that impact wetlands commonly require compensatory mitigation, usually through creation or restoration of wetlands on or off the project site. Over the last decade, federal support has increased for third-party off-site mitigation methods. At the same time, regulators have lowered the minimum impact size that triggers the requirement for compensatory mitigation. Few studies have examined the aggregate impact of individual wetland mitigation projects. No previous study has compared the choice of mitigation method by regulatory agency or development size. We analyze 1058 locally and federally permitted wetland mitigation transactions in the Chicago region between 1993 and 2004. We show that decreasing mitigation thresholds have had striking effects on the methods and spatial distribution of wetland mitigation. In particular, the observed increase in mitigation bank use is driven largely by the needs of the smallest impacts. Conversely, throughout the time period studied, large developments have rarely used mitigation banking, and have been relatively unaffected by changing regulatory focus and banking industry growth. We surmise that small developments lack the scale economies necessary for feasible permittee responsible mitigation. Finally, we compare the rates at which compensation required by both county and federal regulators is performed across major watershed boundaries. We show that local regulations prohibiting cross-county mitigation lead to higher levels of cross- watershed mitigation than federal regulations without cross-county prohibitions. Our data suggest that local control over wetland mitigation may prioritize administrative boundaries over hydrologic function in the matter of selecting compensation sites.     

Environmental Impact Assessment Under the National Environmental Policy Act and the Protocol on Environmental Protection to the Antarctic Treaty

US government actions undertaken in Antarctica are subject to the requirements of both the Protocol and the US National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). There are differences in the scope and intent of the Protocol and NEPA; however, both require environmental impact assessment (EIA) as part of the planning process for proposed actions that have the potential for environmental impacts. In this paper we describe the two instruments and highlight key similarities and differences with particular attention to EIA. Through this comparison of the EIA requirements of NEPA and the Protocol, we show how the requirements of each can be used in concert to provide enhanced environmental protection for the antarctic environment. NEPA applies only to actions of the US government; therefore, because NEPA includes certain desirable attributes that have been refined and clarified through numerous court cases, and because the Protocol is just entering implementation internationally, some recommendations are made for strengthening the procedural requirements of the Protocol for activities undertaken by all Parties in Antarctica. The Protocol gives clear and strong guidance for protection of specific, valued antarctic environmental resources including intrinsic wilderness and aesthetic values, and the value of Antarctica as an area for scientific research. That guidance requires a higher standard of environmental protection for Antarctica than is required in other parts of the world. This paper shows that taken together NEPA and the Protocol call for closer examination of proposed actions and a more rigorous consideration of environmental impacts than either would alone. Three areas are identified where the EIA provisions of the Protocol could be strengthened to improve its effectiveness. First, the thresholds defined by the Protocol need to be clarified. Specifically, the meanings of the terms “minor” and “transitory” are not clear in the context of the Protocol. The use of “or” in the phrase “minor or transitory” further confuses the meaning. Second, cumulative impact assessment is called for by the Protocol but is not defined. A clear definition could reduce the chance that cumulative impacts would be given inadequate consideration. Finally, the public has limited opportunities to comment on or influence the preparation of initial or comprehensive environmental evaluations. Experience has shown that public input to environmental documents has a considerable influence on agency decision making and the quality of EIA that agencies perform.     

The use of recreation planning tools in U.S. Forest Service NEPA assessments

U.S. Forest Service managers are required to incorporate social and biophysical science information in planning and environmental analysis. The use of science is mandated by the National Environmental Policy Act, the National Forest Management Act, and U.S. Forest Service planning rules. Despite the agency’s emphasis on ‘science-based’ decision-making, little is known about how science is actually used in recreation planning and management. This study investigated the perceptions of Forest Service interdisciplinary (ID) team leaders for 106 NEPA projects dealing with recreation and travel management between 2005 and 2008. Our survey data show how managers rate the importance of social and biophysical science compared to other potential ‘success factors’ in NEPA assessments. We also explore how team leaders value and use multi-disciplinary tools for recreation-related assessments. Results suggest that managers employ a variety of recreation planning tools in NEPA projects, but there appears to be no common understanding or approach for how or when these tools are incorporated. The Recreation Opportunity Spectrum (ROS) was the most frequently used planning tool, but the Visitor Experience and Resource Protection (VERP) framework was the most consistently valued tool by those who used it. We recommend further evaluation of the strengths and weaknesses of each planning tool and future development of procedures to select appropriate planning tools for use in recreation-related NEPA assessments.     

Conflict,controversy, and compromise: The Concho water snake (Nerodia harteri paucimaculata) versus the Stacy Dam and Reservoir

The Colorado River Municipal Water District (CRMWD) of Big Spring, Texas, planned to construct the Stacy Reservoir and Dam on the Colorado River near Paint Rock, Texas, yet needed a Section 404 permit from the US Army Corps of Engineers pursuant to the Clean Water Act. In 1986 the Concho water snake (Nerodia harteri paucimaculata) was listed as threatened under the Endangered Species Act (ESA). Much of its remaining range included the stretch of the Colorado River that would be flooded by the proposed dam. After initially rejecting CRMWD proposals for mitigation, and informing the Corps of Engineers that it would issue a jeopardy opinion regarding the 404 permit pursuant to Section 7 of the ESA, the US Fish and Wildlife Service reversed its stand. The final biological opinion stated that reasonable and prudent alternatives previously rejected as unfeasible would remove the threat of jeopardy. This paper concludes that experimental management techniques proposed by FWS to allow dam construction do not adequately ensure survival of the Concho water snake and an alternative water source should have been found.     

Supporting environmental quality: Developing an infrastructure for design

Ten years ago, environmental problems were easy to define: The Hudson and Potomac were polluted; Los Angeles had lousy air; some waste dumps were highly toxic. Solutions were also relatively straightforward: the Clean Air Act for dirty airsheds; the Clean Water Act for dirty rivers; the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA, better known as Superfund) for hazardous waste sites. Unfortunately, reality is not quite so neat. We now know that we were seeing—and treating—symptoms, not the disease itself.     

GOAL-ORIENTED AGRICULTURAL WATER QUALITY LEGISLATION1

ABSTRACT: While significant nonpoint source (NIPS) pollution control progress has been made since passage of Section 319 in the 1987 Water Quality Act, existing federal legislation does not provide for the most timely and cost-effective NIPS pollution reduction. In this paper, we use findings from the Rural Clean Water Program and other nationwide agricultural NIPS pollution control programs, building on legislative history to recommend a coordinated and efficient direction for agricultural water quality legislation. A collaborative framework should be established to accomplish the goals of the Clean Water Act (CWA), Coastal Zone Management Act (CZMA), and the Conservation Title of the Farm Bill. Valuable elements of the 1990 CZMA amendments that created a coastal NIPS program should be subsumed into the CWA. The CWA should reemphasize use of receiving water quality criteria and standards and should allow states flexibility to tailor basin-scale NPS program implementation to local needs. Implementation should involve targeting of NIPS pollution control efforts to critical land treatment areas and use of systems of best management practices to address these targeted water quality problems. The 1995 Farm Bill should reorient production incentives toward water quality to support the collaborative framework, implementing ecologically sound source reduction principles. The Farm Bill and the CWA should contain interrelated provisions for voluntary, incentive-assisted producer participation and fallback regulatory measures. Such coordinated national water quality and Farm Bill legislation that recognizes the need for flexibility in state implementation is supported as the most rational and cost-effective means of attaining water quality goals.     

Review and comparison of wetland impacts and mitigation requirements between New Jersey,USA, Freshwater Wetlands Protection Act and Section 404 of the Clean Water Act

A review of wetland impacts authorized under the New Jersey Freshwater Wetlands Protection Act (FWPA) was conducted based on permitting data compiled for the period 1 July 1988 to 31 December 1993. Data regarding the acreage of wetlands impacted, location of impacts by drainage basin and watershed, and mitigation were analyzed. Wetland impacts authorized and mitigation under New Jersey's program were evaluated and compared with Section 404 information available for New Jersey and other regions of the United States.Under the FWPA, 3003 permits were issued authorizing impacts to 234.76 ha (602.27 acres) of wetlands and waters. Compensatory mitigation requirements for impacts associated with individual permits required the creation of 69.20 ha. (171.00 acres), and restoration of 16.49 ha (40.75 acres) of wetlands. Cumulative impacts by watershed were directly related to levels of development and population growth.The FWPA has resulted in an estimated 67% reduction [44.32 ha (109.47 acres) vs 136.26 ha (336.56 acres)] in annual wetland and water impacts when compared with Section 404 data for New Jersey. For mitigation, the slight increase in wetland acreage over acreage impacted is largely consistent with Section 404 data.Based on this evaluation, the FWPA has succeeded in reducing the level of wetland impacts in New Jersey. However, despite stringent regulation of activities in and around wetlands, New Jersey continues to experience approximately 32 ha (79 acres) of unmitigated wetland impacts annually. Our results suggest that additional efforts focusing on minimizing wetland impacts and increasing wetlands creation are needed to attain a goal of no net loss of freshwater wetlands.