Regulatory context for cumulative impact research

Wetlands protection has become a topic of increased public attention and support, and regulation of wetlands loss under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act has received high priority within the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). Despite this, the nation is continuing to experience serious wetlands losses. This situation reflects the contentious nature of wetlands protection; it involves fundamental conflicts between environmental and development interests. Better information is needed to support regulatory decision making, including information on cumulative impacts. Currently, consideration of cumulative impacts, although required by various federal regulations, is limited. One reason is that most regulatory decisions are made on a permit-specific, site-specific basis, whereas cumulative impacts must be assessed on a broader, regional scale. In addition, scientific information and methods necessary to support cumulative impact assessment have been lacking. An anticipatory, planning-oriented framework to complement the existing site-specific permit review program is needed to support more effective consideration of cumulative impacts; such an effort is beginning to emerge. In addition, EPA is supporting research to provide better information on cumulative effects. It is recommended that the EPA program place initial emphasis on synthesis and analysis of existing information, on maximizing its use in decision making, and on information transfer. Recommended approaches include correlation of historic wetlands losses with loss of wetlands function and values, regional case studies, and development of indices of cumulative impact for use in permit review.Formerly Director, Office of Federal Activities, US Environmental Protection Agency     

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.     

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.     

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.     

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 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.     

Land use in Korean tidal wetlands: impacts and management strategies

The coastal landscapes in southwestern Korea include a diverse array of tidal wetlands and salt marshes. These coastal zones link the ecological functions of marine tidal wetlands and freshwater ecosystems with terrestrial ecosystems. They are rich in biological diversity and play important roles in sustaining ecological health and processing environmental pollutants. Korean tidal wetlands are particularly important as nurseries for economically important fishes and habitats for migratory birds. Diking, draining, tourism, and conversion to agricultural and urban uses have adversely affected Korean tidal wetlands. Recent large development projects have contributed to further losses. Environmental impact assessments conducted for projects affecting tidal wetlands and their surrounding landscapes should be customized for application to these special settings. Adequate environmental impact assessments will include classification of hydrogeomorphic units and consideration of their responses to biological and environmental stressors. As is true worldwide, Korean laws and regulations are changing to be more favorable to the conservation and protection of tidal wetlands. More public education needs to be done at the local level to build support for tidal wetland conservation. Some key public education points include the role of tidal wetlands in maintaining healthy fish populations and reducing impacts of nonpoint source pollution. There is also a need to develop procedures for integrating economic and environmental objectives within the overall context of sustainable management and land uses.     

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.     

Coastal zone development: Mitigation,marsh creation,and decision-making

Marsh creation is currently receiving wide attention in the United States as an important tool for mitigating the impacts of development in coastal wetlands. The perception that there is no net loss in valuable coastal wetlands when development is mitigated by the creation of man-made marshes can have a substantial impact on the permitting and decision-making processes. The effective result may be the trading of natural salt marshes for man-made marshes.Techniques for marsh creation were developed by the US Army Corps of Engineers to enhance and stabilize dredge spoil materials. Most research sponsored by the Corps has been directed at determining whether these goals have been accomplished. A survey of the research indicates that there is insufficient evidence to conclude that man-made marshes function like natural salt marshes or provide the important values of natural marshes. It is necessary, therefore, for decision-makers to understand the limitations of present knowledge about man-made marshes, realistically evaluate the trade-offs involved, and relegate mitigation to its proper role in the permitting process—post facto conditions imposed on developments that clearly meet state qualifications and policies.     

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.     

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.     

Evaluating cumulative effects on wetland functions: A conceptual overview and generic framework

This article outlines conceptual and methodological issues that must be confronted in developing a sound scientific basis for investigating cumulative effects on freshwater wetlands. We are particularly concerned with: (1) effects expressed at temporal and spatial scales beyond those of the individual disturbance, specific project, or single wetland, that is, effects occurring at the watershed or regional landscape level; and (2) the scientific (technical) component of the overall assessment process. Our aim is to lay the foundation for a research program to develop methods to quantify cumulative effects of wetland loss or degradation on the functioning of interacting systems of wetlands. Toward that goal we: (1) define the concept of cumulative effects in terms that permit scientific investigation of effects; (2) distinguish the scientific component of cumulative impact analysis from other aspects of the assessment process; (3) define critical scientific issues in assessing cumulative effects on wetlands; and (4) set up a hypothetical and generic structure for measuring cumulative effects on the functioning of wetlands as landscape systems.We provide a generic framework for evaluating cumulative effects on three basic wetland landscape functions: flood storage, water quality, and life support. Critical scientific issues include appropriate delineations of scales, identification of threshold responses, and the influence on different functions of wetland size, shape, and position in the landscape.The contribution of a particular wetland to landscape function within watersheds or regions will be determined by its intrinsic characteristics, e.g., size, morphometry, type, percent organic matter in the sediments, and hydrologic regime, and by extrinsic factors, i.e., the wetland's context in the landscape mosaic. Any cumulative effects evaluation must take into account the relationship between these intrinsic and extrinsic attributes and overall landscape function. We use the magnitude of exchanges among component wetlands in a watershed or larger landscape as the basis for defining the geographic boundaries of the assessment. The time scales of recovery for processes controlling particular wetland functions determine temporal boundaries. Landscape-level measures are proposed for each function.     

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     

COMPREHENSIVE FLOOD PLAIN MANAGEMENT1

Flooding and the susceptibility to flood damage inherent in all land uses constitute the flood hazard. Resolution of the hazard while properly recognizing flood plain environmental attributes within the context of overall community or area needs is the essence of comprehensive flood plain management. The traditional approach–flood control–has effected modification of only the flooding component of the hazard whether it be coastal or inland. Until recently Federal programs have overlooked the possibilities of modifying the susceptibility component, for which the major responsibility lies with non-Federal interests. Beginning with actions in the TVA area, the latter is now being strongly encouraged through Federal programs and actions notably the Flood Plain Management Services and Survey Programs of the Corps of Engineers, those stemming from Executive Order 11296, and those required for eligibility under the National Flood Insurance Act of 1968. Flood plain management objectives must be stated in planning, e.g., economic efficiency, reduction in threat to life and health, environmental improvement, and regional development, to permit proper evaluation of the optional means and approaches for achieving them.     

From concept to practice: Implementing cumulative impact assessment in New Zealand

In 1991, provisions for environmental impact assessment in New Zealand were changed significantly with the enactment of the Resource Management Act. Among other provisions, this act requires consideration of cumulative impacts in environmental assessment activities undertaken by planners in newly created regional authorities and district and city councils. The institutional context in which the act is being implemented offers both opportunities and constraints to cumulative impact assessment. A lack of methods for CIA is a recognized problem. However, methods that have been developed for environmental impact assessments can be modified to incorporate second-, third-, and fourth-order impacts as well as to identify the direction and magnitude of additive and synergistic impacts. Layered matrices and combined networks are examples of such methods. While they do not allow for scientific prediction, they do provide the practitioner with the ability to consider the cumulative impacts of decisions. This is crucial in New Zealand, where statutory requirements are ahead of established methodologies.     

Wetland protection as land-use planning: The impact of section 404 in Wisconsin,USA

The ability of Section 404 of the Clean Water Act to act as an effective, efficient, and equitable land-use planning tool was assessed through a survey of Section 404 permits in Wisconsin. In a six-month period of permitting, the 404 program reduced wetland losses in the state by 15%. Several factors were examined that may affect permit decisions; these factors are water dependency, alternatives, project type, wetland type, and public or agency comments. Only the water dependency of the project had a statistically significant effect on permit decisions, although development projects that were perceived to provide public good were more likely to be permitted. Environmental impacts of a proposed fill project were not adequately assessed in any of the permit decisions. Because of the way Section 404 is interpreted and administered by the US Army Corps of Engineers, increasing net benefits and achieving an equitable distribution of those benefits is difficult. The corps does not perform any functional evaluations of wetlands nor do they attempt to measure economic value and environmental impacts. In addition, the 404 review process is, in effect, inaccessible to the public. The de facto interpretations of the Section 404 regulations and a lack of program funding and trained personnel all contribute to the program's ineffectiveness.     

ENVIRONMENTAL AUDITING: A Synoptic Approach for Assessing Cumulative Impacts to Wetlands

/ The US Environmental Protection Agency's Wetlands ResearchProgram has developed the synoptic approach as a proposed method forassessing cumulative impacts to wetlands by providing both a general and acomprehensive view of the environment. It can also be applied more broadly toregional prioritization of environmental issues. The synoptic approach is aframework for making comparisons between landscape subunits, such aswatersheds, ecoregions, or counties, thereby allowing cumulative impacts tobe considered in management decisions. Because there is a lack of tools thatcan be used to address cumulative impacts within regulatory constraints, thesynoptic approach was designed as a method that could make use of availableinformation and best professional judgement. Thus, the approach is acompromise between the need for rigorous results and the need for timelyinformation. It is appropriate for decision making when quantitative,accurate information is not available; the cost of improving existinginformation or obtaining better information is high; the cost of a wronganswer is low; there is a high demand for the information; and the situationcalls for setting priorities between multiple decisions versus optimizing fora single decision. The synoptic approach should be useful for resourcemanagers because an assessment is timely; it can be completed within one totwo years at relatively low cost, tested, and improved over time. Anassessment can also be customized to specific needs, and the results arepresented in mapped format. However, the utility of a synoptic assessmentdepends on how well knowledge of the environment is incorporated into theassessment, relevant to particular management questions.KEY WORDS: Cumulative impact assessment; Landscape ecology; Regionalprioritization     

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.     

A strategy for integrating NEPA with EMS and ISO 14000

It is vital that federal managers consider new approaches for enhancing environmental protection while reducing redundancies and cost. Faced with increasing environmental issues, compliance requirements, competing resources, and tightened budget constraints, agencies must seek innovative approaches for doing more with less. The diverse array of confusing and sometimes inappropriate or conflicting regulatory requirements compounds compliance complexities and increases the need to seek resourceful solutions. At a time when NEPA is coming under closer congressional scrutiny, an integrated NEPA/EMS paradigm provides a key for increasing the effectiveness and uniformity of implementing NEPA at the early planning stage, while reducing cost, delays, and redundancies. Effectively integrated, NEPA satisfies one of the five, and perhaps most important, principles of an EMS-environmental planning. NEPA's regulatory requirements not only are consistent with the objective of an EMS, but actually enhance the effectiveness of an EMS. An integrated approach provides the added benefit of increased environmental coordination and heightened communications that translates into further cost reduction and fewer delays. The strategy described in this article is designed to balance the rigors of an international standard with the need to efficiently implement an integrated NEPA/EMS system, given a diverse set of challenging circumstances and constraints.