Environmental impact statement

Last updated

An environmental impact statement (EIS), under United States environmental law, is a document required by the 1969 National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) for certain actions "significantly affecting the quality of the human environment". [1] An EIS is a tool for decision making. It describes the positive and negative environmental effects of a proposed action, and it usually also lists one or more alternative actions that may be chosen instead of the action described in the EIS. One of the primary authors of the act is Lynton K. Caldwell.

Contents

Preliminary versions of these documents are officially known as a draft environmental impact statement (DEIS) [2] or draft environmental impact report (DEIR). [3]

Purpose

The purpose of the NEPA is to promote informed decision-making by federal agencies by making "detailed information concerning significant environmental impacts" available to both agency leaders and the public. [4] The NEPA was the first piece of legislation that created a comprehensive method to assess potential and existing environmental risks at once. It also encourages communication and cooperation between all the actors involved in environmental decisions, including government officials, private businesses, and citizens. [5]

In particular, an EIS acts as an enforcement mechanism to ensure that the federal government adheres to the goals and policies outlined in the NEPA. An EIS should be created in a timely manner as soon as the agency is planning development or is presented with a proposal for development. The statement should use an interdisciplinary approach so that it accurately assesses both the physical and social impacts of the proposed development. [6] In many instances an action may be deemed subject to NEPA's EIS requirement even though the action is not specifically sponsored by a federal agency. These factors may include actions that receive federal funding, federal licensing or authorization, or that are subject to federal control. [7]

Not all federal actions require a full EIS. If the action may or may not cause a significant impact, the agency can first prepare a smaller, shorter document called an Environmental Assessment (EA). The finding of the EA determines whether an EIS is required. If the EA indicates that no significant impact is likely, then the agency can release a finding of no significant impact (FONSI) and carry on with the proposed action. Otherwise, the agency must then conduct a full-scale EIS. Most EAs result in a FONSI. A limited number of federal actions may avoid the EA and EIS requirements under NEPA if they meet the criteria for a categorical exclusion (CATEX). A CATEX is usually permitted when a course of action is identical or very similar to a past course of action and the impacts on the environment from the previous action can be assumed for the proposed action, or for building a structure within the footprint of an existing, larger facility or complex. For example, two recently completed sections of Interstate 69 in Kentucky were granted a CATEX from NEPA requirements as these portions of I-69 utilize existing freeways that required little more than minor spot improvements and a change of highway signage. Additionally, a CATEX can be issued during an emergency when time does not permit the preparation of an EA or EIS. An example of the latter is when the Federal Highway Administration issued a CATEX to construct the replacement bridge in the wake of the I-35W Mississippi River Bridge Collapse.

NEPA does not prohibit the federal government or its licensees/permittees from harming the environment, instead it requires that the prospective impacts be understood and disclosed in advance. The intent of NEPA is to help key decisionmakers and stakeholders balance the need to implement an action with its impacts on the surrounding human and natural environment, and provide opportunities for mitigating those impacts while keeping the cost and schedule for implementing the action under control. However, many activities require various federal permits to comply with other environmental legislation, such as the Clean Air Act, the Clean Water Act, Endangered Species Act and Section 4(f) of the Federal Highway Act to name a few. Similarly, many states and local jurisdictions have enacted environmental laws and ordinances, requiring additional state and local permits before the action can proceed. Obtaining these permits typically requires the lead agency to implement the Least Environmentally Damaging Practicable Alternative (LEDPA) to comply with federal, state, and local environmental laws that are ancillary to NEPA. In some instances, the result of NEPA analysis leads to abandonment or cancellation of the proposed action, particularly when the "No Action" alternative ends up being the LEDPA.

Layout

An EIS typically has four sections: [8]

  • An Introduction including a statement of the Purpose and Need of the Proposed Action.
  • A description of the Affected Environment.
  • A Range of Alternatives to the proposed action. Alternatives are considered the "heart" of the EIS.
  • An analysis of the environmental impacts of each of the possible alternatives. This section covers topics such as:
  • Impacts to threatened or endangered species
  • Air and water quality impacts
  • Impacts to historic and cultural sites, particularly sites of significant importance to indigenous peoples.
  • Social and economic impacts to local communities, often including consideration of attributes such as impacts on the available housing stock, economic impacts to businesses, property values, aesthetics and noise within the affected area
  • Cost and Schedule Analyses for each alternative, including costs and timeline to mitigate expected impacts, to determine if the proposed action can be completed at an acceptable cost and within a reasonable amount of time

While not required in the EIS, the following subjects may be included as part of the EIS or as separate documents based on agency policy.

  • Financial Plan for the proposed action identifying the sources of secured funding for the action. For example, the Federal Highway Administration has started requiring states to include a financial plan showing that funding has been secured for major highway projects before it will approve an EIS and issue a Record of Decision.
  • An Environmental mitigation plan is often requested by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) if substantial environmental impacts are expected from the preferred alternative.
  • Additional documentation to comply with state and local environmental policy laws and secure required federal, state, and local permits before the action can proceed.

Every EIS is required to analyze a No Action Alternative, in addition to the range of alternatives presented for study. The No Action Alternative identifies the expected environmental impacts in the future if existing conditions were left as is with no action taken by the lead agency. Analysis of the No Action Alternative is used to establish a baseline upon which to compare the proposed "Action" alternatives. Contrary to popular belief, the "No Action Alternative" doesn't necessarily mean that nothing will occur if that option is selected in the Record of Decision. For example, the "No Action Alternative" was selected for the I-69/Trans-Texas Corridor Tier-I Environmental Impact Statement. In that Record of Decision, the Texas Department of Transportation opted not to proceed with building its portion of I-69 as one of the Trans-Texas Corridors to be built as a new-terrain route (the Trans-Texas Corridor concept was ultimately scrapped entirely), but instead decided to proceed with converting existing US routes to I-69 by upgrading those roads to interstate standards.

NEPA process

The NEPA process is designed to involve the public and gather the best available information in a single place so that decision makers can be fully informed when they make their choices.

This is the process of EIS

Environmental Impact Statement

Often, the agencies responsible for preparing an EA or EIS do not compile the document directly, but outsource this work to private-sector consulting firms with expertise in the proposed action and its anticipated effects on the environment. Because of the intense level of detail required in analyzing the alternatives presented in an EIS or EA, such documents may take years or even decades to compile, and often compose of multiple volumes that can be thousands to tens of thousands of pages in length.

To avoid potential conflicts in securing required permits and approvals after the ROD is issued, the lead agency will often coordinate with stakeholders at all levels, and resolve any conflicts to the greatest extent possible during the EIS process. Proceeding in this fashion helps avoid interagency conflicts and potential lawsuits after the lead agency reaches its decision.

Tiering

On exceptionally large projects, especially proposed highway and railroad corridors that cross long distances, the lead agency may use a two-tiered process prior to implementing the proposed action. In such cases, the Tier I EIS would analyze the potential socio-environmental impacts along a general corridor, but would not identify the exact location of where the action would occur. A Tier I ROD would be issued approving the general area where the action would be implemented. Following the Tier I ROD, the approved Tier I area is further broken down into subareas, and a Tier II EIS is then prepared for each subarea, that identifies the exact location of where the proposed action will take place. The preparation of Tier II EISs for each subarea proceeds at its own pace, independent from the other subareas within the Tier I area. For example, parts of the proposed Interstate 69 extension in Indiana and Texas, as well as portions of the Interstate 11 corridor in Nevada and Arizona are being studied through a two-tiered process

Strengths

By requiring agencies to complete an EIS, the act encourages them to consider the environmental costs of a project and introduces new information into the decision-making process. The NEPA has increased the influence of environmental analysts and agencies in the federal government by increasing their involvement in the development process. Because an EIS requires expert skill and knowledge, agencies must hire environmental analysts. Unlike agencies who may have other priorities, analysts are often sympathetic to environmental issues. In addition, this feature introduces scientific procedures into the political process. [9]

Limitations

The differences that exist between science and politics limit the accuracy of an EIS. Although analysts are members of the scientific community, they are affected by the political atmosphere. Analysts do not have the luxury of an unlimited time for research. They are also affected by the different motives behind the research of the EIS and by different perspectives of what constitutes a good analysis. In addition, government officials do not want to reveal an environmental problem from within their own agency. [9]

Citizens often misunderstand the environmental assessment process. The public does not realize that the process is only meant to gather information relevant to the decision. Even if the statement predicts negative impacts of the project, decision makers can still proceed with the proposal. [5]

See also

Related Research Articles

<span class="mw-page-title-main">National Environmental Policy Act</span> United States federal environmental law (enacted 1970)

The National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) is a United States environmental law designed to promote the enhancement of the environment. It created new laws requiring U.S. federal government agencies to evaluate the environmental impacts of their actions and decisions, and it established the President's Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ). The Act was passed by the U.S. Congress in December 1969 and signed into law by President Richard Nixon on January 1, 1970. To date, more than 100 nations around the world have enacted national environmental policies modeled after NEPA.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">California Environmental Quality Act</span> California law requiring environmental concerns be considered during land development

The California Environmental Quality Act is a California statute passed in 1970 and signed in to law by then-governor Ronald Reagan, shortly after the United States federal government passed the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), to institute a statewide policy of environmental protection. CEQA does not directly regulate land uses, but instead requires state and local agencies within California to follow a protocol of analysis and public disclosure of environmental impacts of proposed projects and, in a departure from NEPA, adopt all feasible measures to mitigate those impacts. CEQA makes environmental protection a mandatory part of every California state and local (public) agency's decision making process.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Environmental impact assessment</span> Assessment of the environmental consequences of a decision before action

Environmental Impact assessment (EIA) is the assessment of the environmental consequences of a plan, policy, program, or actual projects prior to the decision to move forward with the proposed action. In this context, the term "environmental impact assessment" is usually used when applied to actual projects by individuals or companies and the term "strategic environmental assessment" (SEA) applies to policies, plans and programmes most often proposed by organs of state. It is a tool of environmental management forming a part of project approval and decision-making. Environmental assessments may be governed by rules of administrative procedure regarding public participation and documentation of decision making, and may be subject to judicial review.

Worst case analysis was, from 1978 until 1986, a doctrine under 40 U.S.C. § 1502.22 which mandated that an environmental impact statement include such an analysis:

When an agency is evaluating significant adverse effects on the human environment in an environmental impact statement and there are gaps in relevant information or scientific uncertainty, the agency shall always make clear that such information is lacking or that uncertainty exists.

(a) If the information relevant to adverse impacts is essential to a reasoned choice among alternatives and is not known and the overall costs of obtaining it are not exorbitant, the agency shall include the information in the environmental impact statement.

(b) If (1) the information relevant to adverse impacts is essential to a reasoned choice among alternatives and is not known and the overall costs of obtaining it are exorbitant or (2) the information is relevant to adverse impacts, is important to the decision and the means to obtain it are not known the agency shall weigh the need for the action against the risk and severity of possible adverse impacts were the action to proceed in the face of uncertainty. If the agency proceeds, it shall include a worst case analysis and an indication of the probability or improbability of its occurrence.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Environmental planning</span> Considering environment in developing land

Environmental planning is the process of facilitating decision making to carry out land development with the consideration given to the natural environment, social, political, economic and governance factors and provides a holistic framework to achieve sustainable outcomes. A major goal of environmental planning is to create sustainable communities, which aim to conserve and protect undeveloped land.

The Baltimore–Washington Superconducting Maglev Project (SCMAGLEV) is a proposed project connecting the United States cities of Baltimore, Maryland, and Washington, D.C., with a 40 miles (64 km) maglev train system between their respective central business districts. It is the first segment of the planned Washington-New York Northeast Maglev project. The maglev proposal is not related to the Baltimore–Washington hyperloop proposed by the Boring Company.

The Canadian Environmental Assessment Act, 2012 and its regulations established the legislative basis for the federal practice of environmental assessment in most regions of Canada from 2012 to 2019. It was repealed with the coming into force of the Impact Assessment Act on August 28, 2019.

The Connecticut Environmental Policy Act (CEPA) establishes environmental policy for the U.S. state of Connecticut. It requires an Environmental Impact Evaluation (EIE) for any state action which could potentially impact the natural environment. The lead agency is responsible for preparing the EIE, which is reviewed and approved by the Office of Policy and Management once it is completed.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">National Interest Electric Transmission Corridor</span> Power lines designated by the US DOE as needing expansion

A National Interest Electric Transmission Corridor (NIETC) corridor is a geographic region designated by the United States Department of Energy where electricity transmission limitations are adversely affecting American citizens. The Energy Policy Act of 2005 granted the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) the authority to create these regions to increase transmission capacity within a short timeframe. If state and local governments fail to issue permits to increase transmission capacity in these areas, FERC can issue federal permits empowering project directors to use eminent domain to purchase property needed to complete projects.

The worst-case analysis regulation was promulgated in 1979 by the US Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ). The regulation is one of many implementing the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 and it sets out the formal procedure a US government agency must follow when confronted with gaps in relevant information or scientific uncertainty about significant adverse effects on the environment from a major federal action.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Plant Protection Act</span> United States legislation (2000)

The Plant Protection Act (PPA) is a US statute relating to plant pests and noxious weeds introduced in 2000. It is currently codified at 7 U.S.C. 7701 et seq. It consolidates related responsibilities that were previously spread over various legislative statutes, including the Plant Quarantine Act, the Federal Plant Pest Act and the Federal Noxious Weed Act of 1974.

Monsanto Co. v. Geertson Seed Farms, 561 U.S. 139 (2010), is a United States Supreme Court case decided 7-1 in favor of Monsanto. The decision allowed Monsanto to sell genetically modified alfalfa seeds to farmers, and allowed farmers to plant them, grow crops, harvest them, and sell the crop into the food supply. The case came about because the use of the seeds was approved by regulatory authorities; the approval was challenged in district court by Geertson Seed Farms and other groups who were concerned that the genetically modified alfalfa would spread too easily, and the challengers won. Monsanto appealed the district court decision and lost, and appealed again to the Supreme Court, where Monsanto won, thus upholding the original approval and allowing the seeds to be sold.

Charles H. Eccleston is a former employee of the United States Energy Department (DOE), and later the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) who was convicted for attempting to breach protected computer systems. Eccleston, a U.S. citizen who had been living in Davao City in the Philippines since 2011, was terminated from his employment at the NRC in 2010. He was detained by Philippine authorities in Manila, Philippines, on March 27, 2015, and deported to the United States to face U.S. criminal charges. He initially came to the attention of the FBI in 2013 after he entered a foreign embassy in Manila and offered to sell a list of over 5,000 e-mail accounts of all officials, engineers and employees of a U.S. government energy agency. He said that he was able to retrieve this information because he was an employee of a U.S. government agency, held a top secret security clearance and had access to the agency's network. He asked for $18,800 for the accounts, stating they were “top secret.” When asked what he would do if that foreign country was not interested in obtaining the U.S. government information he was offering, he stated he would offer the information to China, Iran or Venezuela, as he believed these countries would be interested in the information. On February 2, 2016, he pled guilty to one count of "attempted unauthorized access and intentional damage to a protected computer". In his guilty plea, he admitted scheming to cause damage to the computer network of the DOE through e-mails that he believed would deliver a computer virus to particular employees. He was incarcerated as inmate number 68974-112 and was released on July 15, 2016.

<i>Sierra Club v. Babbitt</i> United States District Court case

Sierra Club v. Babbitt, 15 F. Supp. 2d 1274, is a United States District Court for the Southern District of Alabama case in which the Sierra Club and several other environmental organizations and private citizens challenged the United States Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS). Plaintiffs filed action seeking declaratory injunctive relief regarding two incidental take permits (ITPs) issued by the FWS for the construction of two isolated high-density housing complexes in habitat of the endangered Alabama beach mouse. The District Court ruled that the FWS must reconsider its decision to allow high-density development on the Alabama coastline that might harm the endangered Alabama beach mouse. The District Court found that the FWS violated both the Endangered Species Act (ESA) and the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) by permitting construction on the dwindling beach mouse habitat.

Rosemont Copper is a proposed large open pit copper mine project by the Canadian mining corporation Hudbay Minerals. The project site is located within the Santa Rita Mountains and Coronado National Forest, in Pima County of southern Arizona. It has undergone a permitting review process under the direction of the United States Forest Service and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and has been delayed by legal judgements and suspension of its operating permit by the US Army Corps of Engineers.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Responsibly And Professionally Invigorating Development Act of 2013</span>

The Responsibly And Professionally Invigorating Development Act of 2013 is a bill that would aim to expedite the review process required by the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) for construction projects that are partly or fully financed with federal funds or require permits or approvals from federal regulatory agencies. It was to do so by establishing specific deadlines for environmental reviews, which sometimes go on so long that they can delay a project for years.

<i>Calvert Cliffs Coordinating Committee, Inc. v. Atomic Energy Commission</i>

Calvert Cliffs' Coordinating Committee, Inc. v. United States Atomic Energy Commission, 449 F.2d 1109, is a court case which provided the first important court interpretation of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA).

City Environmental Quality Review (CEQR) is a process New York City agencies must undergo to determine if any discretionary action they approved has any deteriorating impact on the environment. Projects that have to be reviewed by CEQR are either in need of permits or approval from a city agency, need city funding, or are directly undertaken by a city agency.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Environmental law in New Jersey</span>

Environmental law in New Jersey consists of legislative and regulatory efforts to protect the natural environment in the State of New Jersey. Such efforts include laws and regulations to reduce air and water pollution, regulate the purity of drinking water, remediate contaminated sites, and preserve lands from development, particularly in the Pinelands of southern New Jersey and the Highlands in the north of the state. Environmental laws in New Jersey are enforced primarily by the New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection (NJDEP).

References

  1. ↑ The National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, as amended, 42 USC Sections 4321-4347 Archived 2008-10-17 at the Wayback Machine (enacted 1970-01-01) from Council on Environmental Quality NEPAnet Archived 2008-10-10 at the Wayback Machine
  2. ↑ "DEIS - Draft Environmental Impact Statement". Colorado Department of Transportation. Archived from the original on 9 June 2020. Retrieved 9 June 2020.
  3. ↑ "Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR)". www.metro.net. Archived from the original on 9 June 2020. Retrieved 9 June 2020.
  4. ↑ See the Supreme Court decision: Robertson v. Methow Valley Citizens Council, 490 U.S. 332, 349 (1989).
  5. 1 2 3 4 5 6 Felleman, John (April 5, 2013), "Environmental Impact Assessment", The Encyclopedia of Earth, archived from the original on April 24, 2019, retrieved February 5, 2017
  6. ↑ "Part 1502--Environmental Impact Statement". U.S. Council on Environmental Quality. Archived from the original on 2010-04-22.
  7. ↑ Eccleston, Charles H. (2008). NEPA and Environmental Planning: Tools, Techniques, and Approaches for Practitioners Archived 2021-10-01 at the Wayback Machine , pp 148-149. CRC Press. ISBN   9780849375590.
  8. ↑ Eccleston, Charles H. (2014). The EIS Book: Managing and Preparing Environmental Impact Statements. Chapter 6. CRC Press. ISBN   978-1466583634.
  9. 1 2 Taylor, Serge. 1984. "Making Bureaucracies Think: The Environmental Impact Statement Strategy of Administrative Reform". Stanford University Press: Stanford, CA.
This page is based on this Wikipedia article
Text is available under the CC BY-SA 4.0 license; additional terms may apply.
Images, videos and audio are available under their respective licenses.