National Environmental Policy Act Process Research Articles

The state of environmental justice analyses in NEPA: The case of Arizona

As the unequal impacts of environmental harms and climate change have become apparent, environmental justice (EJ) is an increasingly salient matter in US environmental policy and impact assessments. The EJ impacts of important infrastructural decisions and investments are most often analyzed in environmental impact statements required by the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA)—a globally influential piece of legislation—with significant discretion given to organizations on how to conduct these analyses. There is little systematic understanding of how these analyses are conducted and what the findings of these analyses tend to be. In this paper, we analyze a decade's worth of EJ analyses that appear in environmental impact statements conducted in the state of Arizona in the US as a first attempt to fill this gap in understanding. We find that throughout EJ analyses 11 different demographic indicators, ten different community boundaries, and eight different population thresholds are used with considerable variation to identify EJ communities. The variation in how these criteria are applied points to an inconsistent definition of an EJ community throughout the federal government. Still, analyses consistently do not find negative EJ impacts to be likely. While NEPA has promoted positive environmental outcomes in the past, it may currently be failing to do this for EJ. We highlight possible flaws in EJ analysis methods and shortcomings of the NEPA process itself that may cumulatively obstruct meaningful EJ consideration. With the widespread influence of NEPA on environmental impact assesment approaches globally, our findings raise questions that EJ analyses in environmental impact assesments outside the US could suffer from the same methodological shortcomings we identify.

Barriers and opportunities to incorporating environmental justice in the National Environmental Policy act

Environmental justice, which seeks to achieve equity in the process and outcomes of environmental policy and decision-making, is a broadly recognized policy objective. As a foundational environmental regulation and opportunity for public engagement with federal decision-making, the United States' National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) is frequently considered a promising venue for addressing environmental justice. While environmental justice has been a recognized consideration within the NEPA process since the 1990s, it is by no means a streamlined process. Understanding the barriers and opportunities to better incorporation of EJ principles in NEPA review processes is critical for understanding how to move from EJ as a concept to actual implementation. Drawing on interviews with federal agencies, project developers, nongovernmental organizations, and other organizations who contributed to NEPA reviews for projects across the US, this paper explores how environmental justice–specifically procedural, distributive, and recognition justice–is currently addressed in the preparation of Environmental Impact Statements and identifies barriers and opportunities for better inclusion. We find that many NEPA practitioners see NEPA as a valuable tool for achieving procedural and distributive justice. However, a number of institutional and organizational barriers exist, most prominently a structure that hinders opportunities for meaningful public engagement, ambiguity in how distributive justice is defined and implemented, and a lack of substantive requirements for potential distributional inequities to be addressed.

Participation or frustration? Local stakeholders and the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA): Donlin gold project, Western Alaska

This paper examines the implementation of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) at the Donlin Gold project in Western Alaska. The Donlin Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) was led by the Army Corps of Engineers to inform federal agency decisions about the issuance of permits including a Section 404 Clean Water Act Permit and a Section 10 Rivers and Harbors Act Permit. As is required by the law, the EIS also investigated and disclosed many environmental impacts that were beyond the scope of the federal permits. The Donlin EIS was widely viewed as more detailed than most other EISs. The EIS process also included local tribal governments as cooperating agencies. Despite the EIS's detail and stakeholders’ increased role, many stakeholders felt that these efforts were insufficient. Stakeholders expressed frustration with the NEPA process and the regulators who implemented it. They reported that they felt patronized by a bureaucratic process that focused on fitting stakeholder concerns into technical and scientific disciplines for analysis by outside experts. This study concludes that augmenting the quantity of scientific study, even in response to the concerns of stakeholders, is unlikely to increase local stakeholders’ satisfaction with NEPA. Rather, regulatory personnel must focus on building trust between their agencies and local communities through 1) direct engagement with local stakeholders beyond the one-way forum of public meetings and 2) transparent dialog early in the NEPA process about the law's limitations with respect to turning stakeholders’ concerns into enforceable project requirements.

Methods federal government agencies implement to comply with the National Environmental Policy Act: Part 1 of 3

ABSTRACTThe National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) became the first major environmental policy in the United States (US) in 1970. NEPA requires federal agencies to determine significant environmental impacts of their actions to the fullest extent possible. Each agency is given flexibility in their compliance (Congress, 1970).This study determines implementation methods employed by NEPA practitioners to integrate the Act and Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) regulations into their agency decision-making and action planning processes. Twelve federal agencies were examined for this study, and 15 interviews were conducted with federal government employees working within the US Executive Branch.This study identified four methods used by agencies to implement the NEPA process into federal decision-making. NEPA training allows decision-makers to initiate the NEPA process when an action is proposed. Programmatic environmental documents review any cumulative environmental impacts from geographical locations...

Discovering Context-Specific Integration Practices for Integrating NEPA into Statewide and Metropolitan Project Planning Processes

AbstractWhen the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) process and the transportation project planning process are not streamlined, the NEPA process may lead to duplication of work and project delays. This paper presents research work in discovering state-suitable integration practices for integrating NEPA into statewide and metropolitan transportation project planning processes for the state of Illinois. The discovery of practices was based on an analytical review of existing integration guidelines and efforts in other states and using a survey of experts from relevant federal, state, and metropolitan planning, regulatory, and resource agencies. Two types of integration practices were identified: process-oriented and collaboration-oriented integration practices. The selected practices were integrated into existing transportation project planning processes and formalized into an integrated process flow with detailed implementation guidance. The integrated process was validated through a second expert s...

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)

Environmental Reviews and Case Studies: NEPA Strategies for Accelerating Project Delivery: Every Day Counts, Tiering, and Alternative Delivery in the I-70 Mountain Corridor

The Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) and the Colorado Department of Transportation (CDOT) have used Every Day Counts tools and other strategies to accelerate the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) process for projects intended to relieve congestion and improve safety in the Twin Tunnels area of Colorado’s Interstate 70 (I-70) Mountain Corridor. These Tier 2 projects follow the I-70 Mountain Corridor Tier 1 Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement (PEIS). The Tier 2 Twin Tunnels projects incorporated tools from the FHWA Every Day Counts Shortening Project Delivery Toolkit, including the Planning and Environmental Linkages concept, legal sufficiency enhancements, and programmatic agreements; the Construction Manager/ General Contractor (CM/GC) alternative delivery method; and a unique stakeholder engagement approach. These tools were effective in reducing the Tier 2 NEPA process to half its normal duration, thereby accelerating overall project delivery. The Tier 2 process was easier to implement because of the scaffolding developed during the Tier 1 process. Establishing an early involvement agreement related to legal reviews allowed FHWA attorneys to work with the project team at early decision points. Using the CM/GC alternative delivery method allowed for early input from the contractor on the preliminary design, avoided the need for NEPA re-evaluations during the final design or construction process, and led to new ideas for avoiding or minimizing impacts to environmental resources. Early and continuous engagement with partner agencies and other stakeholders allowed for quick feedback and provided the necessary support to move the project forward quickly.Environmental Practice 17: 278–290 (2015)

Research Article: Essential Elements of Effective Implementation of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA): Agency Decision Making and the NEPA Process

This article presents the findings of an online survey and interviews with National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) professionals on their opinion on the essential and most important components of ...

Adding ecosystem services to environmental impact analyses: More sequins on a “bloated Elvis” or rockin' idea?

Ecologists and economists have promoted the concept of ecosystem services as a means of assisting environmental decision-making. Currently, several U.S. federal agencies and international institutions are incorporating the ecosystem services approach into their decision-making processes. Since 1999, the concept has been included in guidance documents for environmental impact assessments under the U.S. National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). More recently, the U.S. Forest Service approved a Planning Rule to include ecosystem services in Forest Plans. However, some people already describe the U.S. Forest Service NEPA process as cumbersome, which might be compounded by adding new layers of analysis. To assess the potential of incorporating ecosystem services into land management decisions, we surveyed over 500 U.S. Forest Service professionals about incorporating ecosystem services in environmental impact analysis processes. Our goal was to determine (a) whether and how the ecosystem services concept is currently used in Forest Service NEPA analyses, (b) staff perceptions about how influential NEPA guidance documents are, and (c) whether respondents think that the ecosystem services concept is useful in NEPA processes (and more broadly in environmental decision-making). Forty-one percent of respondents were unfamiliar with ecosystem services, but a majority of the respondents thought that ecosystem services could be helpful in the NEPA process. Opinions were divided about whether or not ecosystem services would improve communication with stakeholders. One finding with potentially broad implications for executive branch policy-making is that survey results indicate that U.S. Forest Service staff found Environmental Protection Agency and Council on Environmental Quality guidance documents less influential than internal Forest Service directives. At the same time, the guidance documents that include ecosystem services language were the least influential among the guidance documents listed in the survey. Applying the results as a case study to advance ecosystem services scholarship, we suggest clarification of the ecosystem services framework, metrics, and guidance.

The Role of the Airport Sponsor in Airport Planning and Environmental Reviews of Proposed Development Projects Under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and State Mini-NEPA Laws

For proposed development projects at public airports, the Federal Aviation Administration (“FAA”) is responsible for compliance with the environmental review procedures of the National Environmental Policy Act (“NEPA”). However, development projects are proposed by airport sponsors, not the FAA. As the project proponent, the airport sponsor plays a significant role in the NEPA process. This paper explores the legal requirements that the airport sponsor and FAA must satisfy under NEPA, related “special-purpose” environmental laws, and state “mini-NEPA” statutes. This paper offers practical guidance to airport sponsors and their legal counsel on how to fulfill specific requirements for each type of NEPA action, or at each stage in the NEPA process. Issues examined include: (1) the roles and responsibility of the airport sponsor and FAA in addressing substantive environmental review requirements, such as formulating the proposed development project’s “purpose and need,” assessing its environmental impact, evaluating the feasibility of alternatives, and formulating mitigation measures; (2) logistical issues, such as the responsibility of the airport sponsor and FAA to coordinate the activities of other parties (such as environmental consultants, the interested public, and other government agencies with jurisdiction over specially-protected environmental resources); and (3) the roles and responsibility of the airport sponsor and FAA to hold public hearings, to make certain NEPA documents publicly available, and to respond to public records requests for other documents. The paper summarizes relevant statutes, regulations, FAA Orders and Advisory Circulars, and case law related to these legal issues.

Team leaders’ perceptions of public influence in the US Forest Service: exploring the difference between doing and using public involvement

Individuals and public groups generally participate in public involvement events in an effort to gain influence over decisions that affect them. However, not much is known about how the process actually results in the public gaining influence over agency decisions. This paper reports the results of an online survey completed by 489 Forest Service National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) team leaders. Respondents reported how much influence they thought the public should have during the NEPA process, how much influence they thought the public generally had, and how much influence the public had on a specific NEPA process at different points in the process. Sixty per cent of the respondents believed the public should have greater influence than they do. Respondents reported that more public influence should and does happen at earlier stages in the process. Early public influence and substantive comments appear to be related to positive perceptions of the public involvement process and public relations outcomes.

Project risk and appeals in U.S. Forest Service planning

The National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) requires U.S. Forest Service planning processes to be conducted by interdisciplinary teams of resource specialists to analyze and disclose the likely environmental impacts of proposed natural resource management actions on Forest Service lands. Multiple challenges associated with these processes have been a source of frustration for the agency. One of these challenges involves administrative appeals through which public entities can challenge a Forest Service decision following a NEPA process. These appeals instigate an internal review process and can result in an affirmation of the Forest Service decision, a reversal of that decision, or additional work that re-initiates all or part of the NEPA process. We examine the best predictors of appeals and their outcomes on a representative sample of 489 Forest Service NEPA processes that were decided between 2007 and 2009. While certain factors associated with pre-existing social contexts (such as a history of controversy) or pre-determined elements of a proposed action (such as the extraction of forest products) predispose certain processes to a higher risk of appeals, other practices and process-related strategies within the control of the agency also appear to bear meaningful influence on the occurrence of appeals and their outcomes. Appeals and their outcomes were most strongly related to programmatic, structural (turnover of personnel in particular), and relationship risks (both internal and external) within the processes, suggesting the need for greater focus within the agency on cultivating positive internal and external relationships to manage the risk of appeals.

The importance of team functioning to natural resource planning outcomes

In its recent history, the U.S. Forest Service is among many federal land management agencies struggling with questions concerning why its planning procedures are sometimes inefficient, perform poorly in the eyes of the public, and fail to deliver outputs that advance agency mission. By examining a representative sample of National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) processes conducted by the agency between 2007 and 2009, we provide new insights into what drives outcomes in these planning processes. We examined team leaders' perceptions of the following outcomes: achievement of agency goals and NEPA mandates, process efficiency, public relations, and team outcomes. The most consistently important predictors of positive outcomes were team harmony and a clearly empowered team leader. Other factors, such as perceptions of the use of best science, a clear and unambiguous purpose and need, team turnover (personnel changes during the process), extra-agency engagement, and intra-agency relations, were also important, but played a less consistent role. The findings suggest the importance of empowering team leaders and team members through enhancing elements of discretion, responsibility, clear role definition, collaborative interdisciplinary deliberation, and perceived self-efficacy. The results also suggest the importance of genuine concern and respect for participating publics and effective inter-agency coordination.

Using multi-criteria decision making to highlight stakeholders’ values in the corridor planning process

The processes for environmental review and public participation mandated by the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and the 2005 Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity Act - A Legacy for Users (SAFETEA-LU), have become overly time-consuming and costly in transportation planning. This paper focuses on the implementation of transportation policy, highlighting how its complex nature challenges the traditional policy process theories. Federal and local perspectives are used as a basis for top-down and bottom-up implementation models. In addition, the authors discuss the conflicting nature of transportation policy implementation within decision processing and suggest an implementation tool that can aid transportation and planning professionals. The authors suggest that the use and integration of existing data from geospatial technologies and economic modeling can result in a visual Multiple Criteria Decision Making (MCDM) model that can aid in streamlining and enhancing the NEPA process, agency coordination, and public participation in different administration levels.

Perspectives from the Field: NEPA Myths: Things We Tell Ourselves about NEPA That Aren't Necessarily True

After the mistakes I discussed in Environmental Practice 12(2), and the gaps I discussed in Environmental Practice 12(3), it may be useful to look at myths that have grown around the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) process. Myths can be defined, as the title suggests, as things we say and believe about NEPA and the NEPA process that are not necessarily true.

Decision making, procedural compliance, and outcomes definition in U.S. forest service planning processes

The National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) dictates a process of analyzing and disclosing the likely impacts of proposed agency actions on the human environment. This study addresses two key questions related to NEPA implementation in the U.S. Forest Service: 1) how do Interdisciplinary (ID) team leaders and decision makers conceptualize the outcomes of NEPA processes? And 2), how does NEPA relate to agency decision making? We address these questions through two separate online surveys that posed questions about recently completed NEPA processes – the first with the ID team leaders tasked with carrying out the processes, and the second with the line officers responsible for making the processes' final decisions. Outcomes of NEPA processes include impacts on public relations, on employee morale and team functioning, on the achievement of agency goals, and on the achievement of NEPA's procedural requirements (disclosure) and substantive intent (minimizing negative environmental impacts). Although both tended to view public relations outcomes as important, decision makers' perceptions of favorable outcomes were more closely linked to the achievement of agency goals and process efficiency than was the case for ID team leaders. While ID team leaders' responses suggest that they see decision making closely integrated with the NEPA process, decision makers more commonly decoupled decision making from the NEPA process. These findings suggest a philosophical difference between ID team leaders and decision makers that may pose challenges for both the implementation and the evaluation of agency NEPA. We discuss the pros and cons of integrating NEPA with decision making or separating the two. We conclude that detaching NEPA from decision making poses greater risks than integrating them.

Environmental Reviews and Case Studies: A Method for Preparing for and Executing Conflict of Interest Assessments

National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) regulations stipulate that when an agency opts to have a private contractor prepare an environmental impact statement, contractor selection should be conducted in such a way as to avoid conflicts of interest (COIs) that might adversely affect the integrity of the NEPA process. The goal is to ensure an unbiased, credible, and defensible environmental impact statement that supports public and transparent decision making. The contractor is responsible for executing a COI disclosure statement prepared by the agency, stating that the contractor has “no financial or other interest” in the outcome of the project. Because determining freedom from COIs after the fact may be difficult, private NEPA contractors should proactively collect information that supports a broad COI analysis of all aspects of their business models, taking into consideration requirements from other regulations that may govern a specific contractor/agency relationship.Environmental Practice 12:168–174 (2010)

Linking the National Environmental Policy Act and Planning

A case study of the efforts of a metropolitan planning organization to link the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and the planning process is presented. The Capital Area Metropolitan Planning Organization (CAMPO) in Texas initiated a series of workshops to begin a dialogue with agencies not typically involved in long-range planning. CAMPO brought together resource and regulatory agencies, nontraditional stakeholders such as members of the Save Our Springs Alliance, the state department of transportation, and others for a meaningful dialogue that resulted in greater understanding among all parties. The workshops led to a sharing of data that can be used in developing long-range transportation plans. Areas of environmental sensitivity as well as cultural and historic features are now being mapped and used in preparing a long-range transportation plan. The next steps will build on the efforts of the early workshops to continue the exchange of data and information and work cooperatively to link the planning process with the NEPA process. It is anticipated that this early information exchange will result in improved project delivery.

Tennessee Environmental Procedures Manual

In 2002 the Environmental Division of the Tennessee Department of Transportation (TDOT) initiated a simple update of its written environmental procedures for projects evaluated under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). In 2003 a new governor and a new TDOT commissioner ushered in changes to the planning, environmental, and public involvement responsibilities of TDOT. As a result of these leadership changes, the manual's simple update was redirected to a more broadly based assessment of the department's existing environmental procedures and the creation of a more streamlined environmental review process that is better integrated into TDOT's project development process and more transparent to the public and other stakeholders. During this time, TDOT also created its first official policy for environmental reviews of state-funded transportation projects, an environmental procedures manual. The manual incorporates the new environmental review processes required by the Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy for Users (SAFETEA-LU) and the pending Tennessee Environmental Streamlining Agreement. This case study describes the manual's development, highlights reforms in the department's philosophy and approach that have affected the contents of the manual, and shares lessons learned. The 2007 Tennessee Environmental Procedures Manual (TEPM), available on TDOT's website, will be useful to other states updating their own older manuals or creating new manuals to meet the requirements of SAFETEA-LU. The TEPM provides a handy reference for navigating the NEPA process, implementing the SAFETEA-LU environmental review requirements, and standardizing technical analysis and documentation that should be of value to NEPA practitioners and transportation professionals in Tennessee and across the country.

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.