National Environmental Policy Act Documentation Research Articles

Impact of social cost of carbon analyses in the development of energy projects on federal land

Pending either legislative action or formal agency guidance, utilization of the Social Cost of Carbon in analyses of energy development projects on federal land under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) is not required. However, current trends indicate that future NEPA documentation of proposed energy projects on federal land will likely address and discuss project impacts on climate change using increasingly quantitative metrics. Accordingly, parties should be prepared to offer substantive comments on the suitability and accuracy of quantitative analyses of the impacts associated with greenhouse gas emissions and offer suggestions for meaningful mitigation measures to reduce such estimates.

Perspectives from the Field: Applying LEAN Process Management to the NEPA Process: The Simplified EA/CE

The National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) process and NEPA documents are constantly being assaulted as being too long, too cumbersome, too expensive, taking too long to accomplish, and not successfully accomplishing the goals of NEPA. Over the years, numerous efforts have attempted to reduce the overall cost, time, and size of NEPA documents. Unfortunately, most of these efforts have failed and, in many cases, actually have made things worse.Lean process management is a tool that can be used to effectively identify opportunities to improve the NEPA process and NEPA documentation in a manner that does not compromise the principles and requirements of NEPA, but allows for more effective and efficient development of NEPA documents. The result can be NEPA documents that are shorter, but overall documentation that is more complete than what is being developed today. The simplified environmental assessment/categorical exclusion template developed for the Colorado Department of Transportation (CDOT) is an example of what this process can accomplish when Lean is applied to NEPA, and the results are staggering. In the pilot, CDOT achieved a 75% reduction in the size of the document and a 50% reduction in review time. The second project to use the template saw even better results.Environmental Practice 17: 302–307 (2015)

Perspectives from the Field: Who Reads Your NEPA Documents and Why?

The National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) statute and regulations require that documents should be prepared for a wide range of readers. These readers have markedly different and sometimes contradictory information needs and expectations. The process of developing NEPA documents supports good intra-agency and interagency communication but produces lengthy technical documents that are difficult for the general public to understand. Environmental Practice 16: 1–6 (2014)

Environmental Reviews and Case Studies: Environmental Reevaluations for Design-Build Highway Projects: Implementing the SR 520 Bridge Replacement and HOV Program

Design-build projects present unique challenges with respect to environmental documentation and regulatory compliance. This article highlights the use of reevaluations of National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) documents to address these challenges, drawing on examples from the State Route (SR) 520 Bridge Replacement and High Occupancy Vehicle (HOV) Program (SR 520 Program), in Seattle, Washington. Reevaluations provide a tool with which project proponents can confirm the validity of existing NEPA documentation relatively quickly and efficiently. The Washington State Department of Transportation (WSDOT) and the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) worked together to develop a reevaluation process that ensures the environmental documentation for the SR 520 Program keeps pace with the design. WSDOT learned valuable lessons through this process, including coordinating early, developing a transition plan, assigning an environmental coordinator, clarifying expectations, and tracking design developments. These recommendations could be useful in future design-build highway projects.

Environmental and Social Risks: Defensive National Environmental Policy Act in the US Forest Service

Abstract The National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and its accompanying regulations provide a spectrum of alternative analytical pathways for federal agencies proposing major actions that might significantly impact the human environment. Although guidance from the President's Council on Environmental Quality suggests the decision to develop an environmental impact statement (EIS), which requires the most rigorous level of analysis, should be based on the likelihood of significant environmental impacts, findings from an Internet survey with US Forest Service project leaders suggest that the decision may more commonly be based on process-related risks, including the threat of litigation, perceived defensibility in court, and the level of public and political interest in the agency's proposed action. An analysis of judicial decisions in NEPA-related litigation reveals that EISs do not appear to be more defensible than environmental assessments in the courts, suggesting that current decisionmaking about NEPA documentation may be misguided, leading to unnecessary project expenditures and delays.

Determining if a change to a proposal requires additional NEPA documentation — the Smithsonian solution

AbstractProposed actions tend to evolve over time. Once National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) documentation is completed, agencies are at risk that subsequent changes may not be adequately covered or that existing NEPA documentation may be completely invalidated. Neither NEPA nor its subsequent regulations provide sufficient direction for determining the degree to which a proposed action may change before preparation of new or supplemental documentation is necessary. Yet, decision makers are routinely involved in determining if a change to a proposed action departs to such an extent from the description presented in the NEPA document that additional documentation is necessary. Experience demonstrates that no two decision makers will completely agree; one decision maker might believe that a particular change would not require additional documentation, while the other concludes the exact opposite.Lacking definitive direction, decision makers and critics alike may point to a universe of potential considerations as the basis for defending their claim that a change in an action does or does not require new or additional NEPA documentation. Assertions are often based on equivocal opinions that can be neither proved nor disproved. Moreover, decision makers are frequently placed in the dilemma of justifying a decision, for which there is no generally accepted methodology on which to base it.Lack of definitive direction can prolong the decision‐making process, resulting in project delays. This can also lead to inappropriate levels of NEPA documentation, inconsistencies in decision making, and increased risk of a legal challenge because of insuficient documentation. Clearly, a more sys tematic and less subjective approach is needed. A tool for streamlining the NEPA process, by reducing this degree of subjectivity, is presented in this article.

Major Investment Studies and Environmental Documentation: Clearing Up the Confusion

Federal planning regulations issued in 1993 require major investment studies (MISs) to help metropolitan planning organizations reach decisions on high-cost, high-impact highway and transit facilities. The regulations offer two options for the development of National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) documents for major investments. In Option 1, draft and final NEPA documents are prepared during the project development/ preliminary engineering phase for any projects that emerge from an MIS and have been incorporated into the region’s long-range plan. In Option 2, a draft NEPA document is prepared as part of the MIS. Although there is general appreciation and understanding of the planning principles underlying the MIS process, the role of environmental impact analysis and documentation has been a source of confusion, misunderstanding, and skepticism. An attempt is made to clear up this confusion by explaining Option 1, Option 2, and the more recently conceived Option 1½ and by presenting situations and circumstances in which each option might be most advantageous. Also presented is the federal “vision” that led to the development of the MIS process, the nature of MIS alternatives is highlighted, suggestions for establishing the appropriate level of detail are offered, and a distinction is made between NEPA principles and documentation requirements.

“Keeping everyone talking”: An approach for nepa documentation in the base disposal and reuse process

AbstractUnder the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), as applied under the 1990 Base Closure and Realignment Act, military departments are required to document the environmental consequences of a local community's proposed reuse of a military installation scheduled for closure and disposal. In turn, to facilitate rapid disposal of closed installations so they can be redeveloped for job creation to offset the economic effects of their closure, federal regulations requriure the completion of such documentation for base disposal and resuse actions is subject to several potential problems and delays, given the nature of these actions, the entities responsible for their implementation, and the multiplicity of agencies involved with disposal and reuse planning. This article presents an approach for conducting NEPA documentation for base disposal and reuse projects. It involves creating a free flow of information among the military department, the local community, and applicable regulatory agencies, as well as coordinating the various components of reuse planning, environmental cleanup, and NEPA documentation activities. A case study of the application of the approach is presented for the NEPA documentation being conducted for the disposal and reuse of Naval Air Station (NAS) Cecil Field in Jacksonville, Florida.

NEPA: Determining when an analysis contains sufficient detail to provide adequate coverage for a proposed action

AbstractNeither the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) nor its subsequent regulations provide substantive guidance for determining the level of detail, discussion, and analysis that is sufficient to adequately cover a proposed action. Yet, decision makers are routinely confronted with making such determinations. Experience has shown that no two decision makers are likely to completely agree on the amount of discussion that is sufficient to adequately cover a proposed action. Lacking definitive guidance, decision makers and critics alike may point to a universe of potential factors as the basis for defending their claim that an action is or is not adequately covered. Experience indicates that assertions are often based on ambiguous opinions that can be neither proved nor disproved. Lack of definitive guidance slows the decision‐making process and can result in project delays. Furthermore, it can also lead to inconsistencies in decision‐making, inappropriate levels of NEPA documentation, and increased risk of a project being challenged for inadequate coverage. This article sets out a model specifically designed to streamline the NEPA process by providing a systematic approach for making these determinations. In many cases, agencies may find that using this model can reduce the analysis and size of NEPA documents.