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     

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.     

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.     

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 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.     

土壤综合治理技术─—空气抽取法和堆肥法结合使用治理土壤污染

文中介绍了国外用土壤空气抽取法和堆肥法清除土壤中有机溶剂、芳香烃类和石油污染物的技术及其应用。这两种方法单独使用均可成功地治理有害废弃物。实践证明，将这两种技术串联使用可更有效地处理土壤中污染物及加速生物降解过程。根据现场特点，利用多种治理技术综合治理土壤污染物是治理污染物的发展方向。     

土壤综合治理技术─—空气抽取法和堆肥法结合使用治理土壤污染

文中介绍了国外用土壤空气抽取法和堆肥法清除土壤中有机溶剂、芳香烃类和石油污染物的技术及其应用。这两种方法单独使用均可成功地治理有害废弃物。实践证明，将这两种技术串联使用可更有效地处理土壤中污染物及加速生物降解过程。根据现场特点，利用多种治理技术综合治理土壤污染物是治理污染物的发展方向。     

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.     

A national critical loads framework for atmospheric deposition effects assessment: I. Method summary

The United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), with the assistance of the US Department of Energy (DOE) and the National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) is examining the utility of a critical loads approach for evaluating atmospheric pollutant effects on sensitive ecosystems. A critical load has been defined as, “a quantitative estimate of an exposure to one or more pollutants below which significant harmful effects on specified sensitive elements of the environment do not occur according to present knowledge.” Working in cooperation with the United Nations Economic Community for Europe’s (UN-ECE) Long Range Transboundary Air Pollution (LRTAP) Convention, the EPA has developed a flexible, six-step approach for setting critical loads for a range of ecosystem types. The framework is based on regional population characteristics of the ecosystem(s) of concern. The six steps of the approach are: (1) selection of ecosystem components, indicators, and characterization of the resource; (2) definition of functional subregions; (3) characterization of deposition within each of the subregions; (4) definition of an assessment end point; (5) selection and application of models; and (6) mapping projected ecosystem responses. The approach allows for variable ecosystem characteristics and data availability. Specific recognition of data and model uncertainties is an integral part of the process, and the use of multiple models to obtain ranges of critical loads estimates for each ecosystem component in a region is encouraged. Through this intercomparison process uncertainties in critical loads projections can be estimated. The research described in this article has been funded by the US Environmental Protection Agency. This document has been prepared at the EPA Environmental Research Laboratory in Corvallis, Oregon, through contract #68-C8-0006 with Man Tech Environmental Technology, Inc. It has been subjected to the agency’s peer and administrative review and approved for publication. Mention of trade names or commercial products does not constitute endorse ment or recommendation for use.     

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.     

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.     

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.     

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.     

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.     

Distinguishing Ecotoxic Effects of Environmental Pollutants

Environmental fluctuations and biological variability affect the establishment of baseline data in studying the ecotoxic effects of pollutants. Since substantial fluctuations are recorded for various ecological indices, it becomes problematic to establish whether an observed change in some ecological parameters represents a variation caused by presence of a pollutant, or represents 'natural' fluctuations inherent in the ecosystem.Thus, ability to predict ecotoxic effect lies at the base of the diagnosis. Such diagnosis should employ characteristics that reflect the integrated response of component populations to perturbations and as well provide a comprehensive picture of ecosystem 'status'. Measurements become authentic and acceptable only when compared with normal values of the numerical parameter in question.     

土壤环境质量研究的回顾和展望

土壤环境质量作为土壤质量的重要组成部分之一,是表征土壤容纳、吸收和降解各种环境污染物的能力。目前对土壤环境质量定义尚无统一的意见,陈怀满教授给出了土壤环境质量的参考定义,指出土壤环境质量是在一定的时间和空间范围内,土壤自身性状对其持续利用和其他环境要素,特别是对人类或其他生物的生存、繁衍以及社会经济发展的适宜性。本文从土壤污染、环境容量、污染物迁移转化、生态安全以及修复技术等角度回顾了国内外土壤环境质量的研究内容。对今后土壤环境质量的发展趋势进行了展望,指出土壤环境质量在我国的研究和应用还比较薄弱,在土壤持续污染物防治、土壤污染风险评价等方面急需加强。随着我国环境形势日益严峻,土壤环境污染机理及其防治也提上议事日程,土壤环境质量的研究和应用对于我国的农业安全、食品安全、生态安全都具有极为重要的理论和现实意义。     

Field bioassessments for selecting test systems to evaluate military training lands in tallgrass prairie. Ecosystem health. V

Ecosystem responses to physical or chemical stress may vary from changes in single organisms to alteration of the structure and function of the ecosystem. These responses to stress cannol be predicted exactly. Ecosystems repeatedly exposed to physical and/or chemical stress can be used to study the separate and combined environmental effects of stress. Such studies also allow the development of procedures to select test systems for the analysis of stress in ecosystems. A preliminary field survey of six military training sites at Fort Riley, Kansas, USA, was conducted to identify and verify ecological test systems for evaluating ecosystem responses to physical and/or chemical stress. Comparisons of these data with data collected concurrently from Konza Prairie Research Natural Area reference sites showed that soil microarthropods, some species of macroarthropods, small mammals, and native earthworm species were negatively affected by stress. In contrast, plant species diversity, plant foliage biomass, soil mycorrhizae, and many soil characteristics were within the boundaries of nominal variations observed on “pristine” Konza Prairie. Introduced European earthworms appeared to be positively affected by training activities. This study provided a test of systematic procedures to support impact analysis, ecological toxicology, and ecosystem risk assessments. This is paper IX in D. J. Schaeffer's “Environmental Audit” series.     

土壤污染的健康危害与修复技术

土壤污染是当今社会面临的重要环境问题之一,已经对人体健康构成了严重威胁。本文将土壤污染物分为有机污染物、无机污染物、生物污染物和放射性污染物,并阐述了各类污染物对人体健康的危害,介绍了具有广阔应用前景的污染土壤修复技术,即植物修复技术和微生物修复技术。最后,本文还对解决土壤污染问题提出了具体的建议。     

土壤污染风险评价研究进展

随着工业化和城镇化快速发展,土壤污染带来的人体健康和生态风险日益凸显.本文针对我国土壤污染环境风险评价体系在风险管控中的缺失问题,系统总结了国内外土壤污染的风险研究发展成果,按照土壤污染的人体健康风险和生态风险,分别进行评价方法、评价标准和管理实践的总结与评述.文章着重指出:土壤污染风险评价在生态系统水平及区域流域尺度上缺失,评价方法未能与污染物存在形态完全匹配,评价指标还不能覆盖大部分重金属和有机物,健康风险与生态风险还没有实现综合评价.