A Procedure for NEPA Assessment of Selenium Hazards Associated With Mining

This paper gives step-by-step instructions for assessing aquatic selenium hazards associated with mining. The procedure was developed to provide the U.S. Forest Service with a proactive capability for determining the risk of selenium pollution when it reviews mine permit applications in accordance with the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). The procedural framework is constructed in a decision-tree format in order to guide users through the various steps, provide a logical sequence for completing individual tasks, and identify key decision points. There are five major components designed to gather information on operational parameters of the proposed mine as well as key aspects of the physical, chemical, and biological environment surrounding it — geological assessment, mine operation assessment, hydrological assessment, biological assessment, and hazard assessment. Validation tests conducted at three mines where selenium pollution has occurred confirmed that the procedure will accurately predict ecological risks. In each case, it correctly identified and quantified selenium hazard, and indicated the steps needed to reduce this hazard to an acceptable level. By utilizing the procedure, NEPA workers can be confident in their ability to understand the risk of aquatic selenium pollution and take appropriate action. Although the procedure was developed for the Forest Service it should also be useful to other federal land management agencies that conduct NEPA assessments, as well as regulatory agencies responsible for issuing coal mining permits under the authority of the Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act (SMCRA) and associated Section 401 water quality certification under the Clean Water Act. Mining companies will also benefit from the application of this procedure because priority selenium sources can be identified in relation to specific mine operating parameters. The procedure will reveal the point(s) at which there is a need to modify operating conditions to meet environmental quality goals. By recognizing concerns early in the NEPA process, it may be possible for a mining company to match operational parameters with environmental requirements, thereby increasing the likelihood that the permit application will be approved.     

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.     

The Dakota Access Pipeline and the Breakdown of Participatory Processes in Environmental Decision-Making

This article employs a close reading of documents related to the permitting process for the Dakota Access Pipeline (DAPL) and ensuing legal battle in order to argue that extant regulatory frameworks for environmental decision-making are insufficient to promote environmental justice outcomes. By analyzing the US Army Corps of Engineer's responses to comments made during the public comment phase of the NEPA evaluation of the DAPL, I argue that regulatory frameworks may exacerbate environmental justice concerns by incentivizing decision makers to prioritize justification for their decisions and avoiding legal battles over meaningfully engaging with communities. This finding leads me to call for more engagement with energy democracy's orientation toward community-led processes as a corrective to current regulatory systems. This article expands on extant work in environmental communication by more thoroughly investigating the flaws in extant regulatory frameworks and calling for a perspectival shift in environmental decision-making.     

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.     

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 Decision-Identification Tree: A New NEPA Scoping Tool

decision-based scoping —provides an effective methodology for improving the EIS scoping process. Decision-based scoping, in conjunction with a new tool, the decision-identification tree (DIT), places emphasis on first identifying the potential decisions that may eventually need to be made. The DIT provides a methodology for mapping alternative courses of action as a function of fundamental decision points. Once these decision points have been correctly identified, the range of actions, alternatives, and impacts can be more accurately assessed; this approach can improve the effectiveness of EIS planning, while reducing the risk of future disconnects between the EIS analysis and reaching a final decision. This approach also has applications in other planning disciplines beyond that of the EIS.     

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.     

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.