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.     

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the 1970s have, by defining the nature and acceptability of environmental impact and prohibiting unacceptable impacts, superseded the substantive role of NEPA in environmental protection.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 NEPA has thus been superseded by other environmental laws, and its role in the decision-making process today has little relation to its earlier environmental significance.     

Forest service experience with interdisciplinary teams developing integrated resource management plans

The National Forest Management Act and National Environmental Policy Act require the use of an interdisciplinary team (ID team) to do integrated resource planning for the National Forests and the concurrent environmental analysis. A survey sent to all National Forest planning officers (82% response) reveals the composition of the ID teams used in integrated resource and land management planning. More than half the National Forests ID teams met NEPA and NFMA compositional requirements. National Forest planners recount their experiences with these ID teams. Despite frustrations with many aspects of the ID teams, the planners strongly support the idea that ID teams are an important part of the land-use planning process and think that their use leads to better National Forest integrated resource plans.     

NEPA AND A STATE'S ROLE IN WATER RESOURCES MANAGEMENT1

ABSTRACT The National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, has been called a revolutionary piece of legislation. It has changed, and is still changing the traditional ways of governmental decision-making. NEPA has strongly influenced the field of water resources management. An environmental statement can now be seen not as a document to support or justify a plan, but an objective assessment of what environmental costs and benefits are involved. New York State has seized upon NEPA as an important feature of its environmental quality management programs and has used the opportunity to comment upon draft environmental statements under NEPA to increase its influences upon Federal decision-making. The Department of Environmental Conservation coordinates and synthesizes all comments and provides one unified State response on a statement. At the State level, lacking a comprehensive “little NEPA”, an extensive environmental analysis program has been built by utilizing a wide spectrum of Federal and State Laws and administrative regulations.     

The Relationship of Ecosystem Management to NEPA and Its Goals

/ The National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA) was intended to promote a systematic, comprehensive, interdisciplinary approach to planning and decisionmaking, including the integration of the natural and social sciences and the design arts. NEPA critics have cited three key shortcomings in its implementation: (1) a lack of engagement with the NEPA process early in the planning process through interdisciplinary collaboration; (2) a lack of rigorous science and the incorporation of ecological principles and techniques; and (3) a lack of emphasis on the Act's substantive goals and objectives. In recent years and independent of NEPA, a policy of ecosystem management has been developed, which represents a fundamental change from a fragmented, incremental planning and management approach to a holistic, comprehensive, interdisciplinary land and resource management effort. We postulate that by incorporating ecosystem management principles in their planning and decisionmaking, federal agencies can address the shortcomings in NEPA implementation and move closer to NEPA's intent. A case analysis of EISs prepared by the USDA Forest Service before and after adopting an ecosystem management approach supports our hypothesis.     

Terrestrial perturbation experiments for environmental assessment

The National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA) was initially interpreted as requiring full disclosure of the environmental impact of a federal action. Because of the limitations of time, money, and manpower, the requirement that all impacts be considered has led to superficial analysis of many important impacts. Data collection has largely been limited to the enumeration of species because this information can be applied to the analysis of any problem. The President's Council on Environment Quality (CEQ) has provided a solution to this problem by reinterpreting NEPA as requiring analysis of those impacts that have significant bearing on decision making. Because assessment resources can now be concentrated on a few critical issues, it should be possible to perform field perturbation experiments to provide direct evidence of the effects of a specific mixture of pollutants or physical disturbances on the specific receiving ecosystem. Techniques are described for field simulation of gaseous and particulate air pollution, polluted rain, soil pollutants, disturbance of the soil, and disturbance of wildlife. These techniques are discussed in terms of their realism, cost, and the restrictions that they place on the measurement of ecological parameters. Development and use of these field perturbation techniques should greatly improve the accuracy of predictive assessments and further our understanding of ecosystem processes.Research sponsored by the Office of Health and Environmental Research, U.S. Department of Energy, under contract W-7405-eng-26 with Union Carbide Corporation.Publication No. 1816, Environmental Sciences Division, ORNL.     

Integrating a life-cycle assessment with NEPA: Does it make sense?

The National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) of 1969 provides the basic national charter for protection of the environment in the United States. Today NEPA provides an environmental policy model, emulated by nations around the world. Recently, questions have been raised regarding the appropriateness and under what conditions it makes sense to combine the preparation of a NEPA analysis with the International Organization for Standardization (ISO) ISO 14000 standards for Life-Cycle Assessment (LCA). This article advances a decision-making tool consisting of six discrete factors for use in determining when it is appropriate to perform an integrated NEPA/LCA analysis. Properly applied, this tool should reduce the risk that an LCA may be inappropriately prepared and integrated with a NEPA analysis.© 1999 John Wiley & Sons, Inc.     

ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT MITIGATION UNDER THE CLEAN WATER ACT AND THE NATIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY ACT: THE CASE OF TWO FORKS DAM1

ABSTRACT: The role of environmental mitigation in permitting decisions under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act and the National Environmental Policy Act is examined, addressing the extent to which compensatory mitigation is acceptable. The role of mitigation is examined both generically and specifically: first in the requirements of the Clean Water Act and NEPA, and then in the case study of the proposed Two Forks Dam. In both cases, the paper describes dual purposes of environmental protection legislation and mitigation: to protect the biophysical environment and maintain associated human values. Mitigation is found to be sometimes necessary and acceptable as compensation for unavoidable impacts of project development. However, the Two Forks case exemplifies that compensatory mitigation has also been employed as a mechanism to facilitate project development when practicable alternatives entailing less environmental impact are available. Acceptance of compensatory mitigation in such cases violates both the Guidelines of the Clean Water Act and the intent of that Act and NEPA to protect the biophysical environment and human welfare. A recent memorandum of agreement between the Corps and the EPA clarifies this policy, and suggests that permit applications which rely on compensatory mitigation when impacts are available may be denied.     

From the office to the field: Areas of tension and consensus in the implementation of the National Environmental Policy Act within the US Forest Service

We conducted an online survey (n = 3321) followed by five focus groups with Forest Service employees involved in compliance with the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) to explore agency views of how NEPA should be implemented within the agency. We filter these perceptions through the lenses of different functional groups within the agency, each with its own role in agency compliance with NEPA and its own suite of perceived accountabilities. In doing so, we uncover areas of consensus regarding valued practices as well as tensions between employees with different roles in NEPA compliance. General consensus exists regarding the importance of the effective functioning of interdisciplinary teams, but opinions about what constitutes an effective team vary. Findings suggest that NEPA serves as a playing field for competing accountabilities felt by line officers, disciplinary specialists, and advisory personnel within the agency, as each attempts to exert influence over NEPA processes and their outcomes.     

The meaning of the National Environmental Policy Act within the U.S. Forest Service

We conducted a survey of 3321 Forest Service employees involved in compliance with the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) followed by five focus groups to investigate agency views of the purpose of agency NEPA processes and their appropriate measures of success. Results suggest the lack of a unified critical task for Forest Service NEPA processes and that employees' functions relevant to NEPA influence their views of its meaning. Compared to other agency personnel, members of interdisciplinary teams who carry out most day-to-day NEPA-related tasks placed greater emphasis on minimizing negative environmental and social impacts, satisfying multiple stakeholders and avoiding litigation and appeals. Line officers, who typically serve as the decision makers following NEPA processes, placed greatest emphasis on efficient implementation and least emphasis on minimizing impacts. Advisory personnel placed greatest emphasis on effective disclosure of analyses and decision-making. We discuss the structural origins of these differences as well as their implications.     

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.     

Risk Tradeoffs in Adaptive Ecosystem Management: The Case of the U.S. Forest Service

Natural resource planning processes on public lands in the United States are driven in large part by the requirements of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), which dictates general processes for analyzing and disclosing the likely impacts of proposed actions. The outcomes of these processes are the result of multiple factors, many related to the manifold smaller incremental decisions made by agency personnel directing the processes. Through interviews with decision makers, team leaders, and team members on five NEPA processes within the U.S. Forest Service, this study examines those incremental decisions. Risk, in particular external relationship risk, emerged as a dominant lens through which agency personnel weigh and make process-related decisions. We discuss the tradeoffs associated with agency actors’ emphasis on this form of risk and their potential implications for adaptive ecosystem management and organizational performance.     

Stakeholder involvement in NEPA scoping processes: evaluating practices and effects in transportation agencies

Focusing on environmental review practice in state departments of transportation in the US, the study examines the practices and effects of stakeholder involvement in scoping processes conducted under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). Based on a survey of environmental review staff in 46 of the 50 states, the study finds variation in approaches used by states and relatively high levels of perceived effectiveness. The findings include a number of internal and external factors that contribute to effectiveness and highlight the impacts of participation on the content and outcomes of scoping processes.     

Innovation in environmental policy: the National Environmental Policy Act of the US and the Resource Management Act of New Zealand

On enactment, both the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), 1970 of the US and the Resource Management Act (RMA), 1991 of New Zealand received accolades for innovativeness. However, is such praise justified when these acts are explored through the literature on policy innovation? This paper suggests that it is. More importantly, recognizing how different attributes of innovation contribute to having a policy adopted suggests what the crafters of future environmental policies might do well to consider. It is critical to attend to the political climate in which a policy is being drafted.     

Implications of environmental program planning for siting a nuclear waste repository at Yucca Mountain,Nevada, USA

The US Department of Energy (DOE) plans to conduct site characterization studies at Yucca Mountain, Nevada, to determine if the location is a suitable site for a nuclear waste repository. In lieu of traditional environmental review in accordance with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, the DOE is relying on an environmental assessment (EA) mandated by the Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982 as the cornerstone of its environmental program for the Yucca Mountain Project. Because of statutory restrictions, the EA is not based on comprehensive baseline information. Neither does it address fundamentals of environmental analysis such as ecological integrity and assessment of cumulative impacts. Consequently, the present environmental program for Yucca Mountain reflects decisions made without complete information and integrated environmental review. The shortcomings of the program risk compromising the natural integrity of Yucca Mountain and invalidating future assessment of the ability of a nuclear waste repository located at the site to protect the environment. Significant improvements are needed in the repository siting program before it can serve as a model of how society can evaluate the long-term environmental consequences of advanced technologies, as has been suggested.     

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.     

Siting America's geologic repository for high-level Nuclear Waste: Implications for environmental Policy

Siting a geologic repository for isolating highlevel nuclear waste up to 10,000 years is a controversial undertaking never before attempted in the United States. The Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982 exempted repository siting from important requirements for environmental review under the National Environmental Policy Act. In December 1987, the Nuclear Waste Policy Amendments Act identified Yucca Mountain as the first site to be characterized for a high-level nuclear waste repository. In light of the unproven nature of the technology being evaluated, the scientific uncertainties associated with Yucca Mountain, and the lack of proven methods for risk evaluation, the environmental policies for repository siting represent a significant departure from more traditional, comprehensive, and interdisciplinary environmental review for siting nuclear projects. The policies warrant further study by those interested in how present as well as future decisions about complex technologies may be made.     

Regulatory requirements and tools for environmental assessment of hazardous wastes: Understanding tribal and stakeholder concerns using Department of Energy sites

Many US governmental and Tribal Nation agencies, as well as state and local entities, deal with hazardous wastes within regulatory frameworks that require specific environmental assessments. In this paper we use Department of Energy (DOE) sites as examples to examine the relationship between regulatory requirements and environmental assessments for hazardous waste sites and give special attention to how assessment tools differ. We consider federal laws associated with environmental protection include the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA), the Comprehensive Environmental Response Compensation and Liability Act (CERCLA), as well as regulations promulgated by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Tribal Nations and state agencies. These regulatory regimes require different types of environmental assessments and remedial investigations, dose assessments and contaminant pathways. The DOE case studies illustrate the following points: 1) there is often understandable confusion about what regulatory requirements apply to the site resources, and what environmental assessments are required by each, 2) the messages sent on site safety issued by different regulatory agencies are sometimes contradictory or confusing (e.g. Oak Ridge Reservation), 3) the regulatory frameworks being used to examine the same question can be different, leading to different conclusions (e.g. Brookhaven National Laboratory), 4) computer models used in support of groundwater models or risk assessments are not necessarily successful in convincing Native Americans and others that there is no possibility of risk from contaminants (e.g. Amchitka Island), 5) when given the opportunity to choose between relying on a screening risk assessments or waiting for a full site-specific analysis of contaminants in biota, the screening risk assessment option is rarely selected (e.g. Amchitka, Hanford Site), and finally, 6) there needs to be agreement on whether there has been adequate characterization to support the risk assessment (e.g. Hanford). The assessments need to be transparent and to accommodate different opinions about the relationship between characterizations and risk assessments. This paper illustrates how many of the problems at DOE sites, and potentially at other sites in the U.S. and elsewhere, derive from a lack of either understanding of, or consensus about, the regulatory process, including the timing and types of required characterizations and data in support of site characterizations and risk assessments.     

Environmental regulatory compliance on army lands: A case study

A “finding of no significant impact” (FONSI) resulting from an environmental assessment (EA) was reported by the US Army in June 1986 for the construction and utilization of a multipurpose range complex (MPRC) at the Pohakuloa Training Area, Hawaii. There was little public response, and the US Fish and Wildlife Service and state agencies were consulted and had few comments concerning the results of the botanical surveys used in the assessment. Construction of the $24 million project was begun in 1988. Near the end of construction in 1989 a lawsuit was filed to halt construction because an environmental impact statement (EIS) had not been done for the project, and the plaintiff thought that significant damage had occurred to several unusual ecosystems. Judgment was against the plaintiff and construction continued. An appeal was filed with the 9th Circuit Court. As MPRC construction was nearly complete, and on advice of Department of Justice lawyers, the Department of Army agreed to settle out of court. The settlement in part called for: (1) the plaintiff to drop the appeal and allow construction to be completed as scheduled, and (2) the Department of Army to prepare an EIS for the operation of the MPRC. A subsequent botanical survey for the EIS discovered one endangered plant species, four category 1 candidate plant species (taxa with sufficient data to support listing as endangered or threatened), three category 2 candidate plant species (taxa with some evidence of vulnerability but insufficient data to support listing at this time), one category 3a species (presumably extinct taxa), and possibly three undescribed species growing within the MPRC boundary. The MPRC case study is an excellent example of why the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) must be modified to require in-depth and thorough environmental surveys.