Case Study: Environmental Impact

Environmental Impact Assessment. [VitalSource Bookshelf Online]. Retrieved from https://online.vitalsource.com/#/books/9781121379886/

Certain concepts of environmental impact assessment are established in the language of the National Environmental Policy Act and imple- menting regulations. These concepts are fundamental to all impact assessments (Fig. 1.1).

1.1 National Environmental Policy Act

The National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) of 1969, as amended (42 U.S.C. 4321-4347), set forth requirements for agencies of the feder- al government in Title I and established the Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) in Title II. Among the most significant features of the law in Section lO2(2) are the requirements for federal agencies to use a systematic, interdisciplinary approach to ensure integrated use of envi- ronmental arts in planning and decision making which may have an impact on the human environment; to develop procedures to ensure that environmental amenities and values are given appropriate consid- eration in decision making, along with economic and technical consid- erations; and to

Include in every recommendation or report on proposals for legislation and other major Federal actions significantly affecting the quality of the human environment, a detailed statement by the responsible official o n -

(1) The environmental impact ofthe proposed action,

(2) Any adverse environmental effects which cannot be avoided should the proposal be implemented,

(3) Alternatives to the proposed action,

(4) The relationship between local short-term uses of man's environment and the maintenance and enhancement of long-term productivity, and

(5) Any irreversible and irretrievable commitments of resources which would be involved in the proposed action should it be implemented.

1.2 Council on Environmental Quality Regulations

The CEQ issued guidelines in 1970 and revised guidelines in 1973 for implementation of Section 102(2)(C) of the law. The guidelines estab- lished a process, defined required environmental documents, and set forth recommendations for public review and involvement. Because the guidelines were intended to be nondiscretionary standards for agency decision making, but were viewed by some agencies and courts as advisory only, President Carter issued Executive Order 11991 on May 24, 1977, directing the CEQ to issue regulations. In 1978, the guidelines became regulations (40 CFR Parts 1500-1508), and efforts were made to reduce paperwork, reduce delay, promote bet- ter decisions, and focus environmental studies on issues and impacts that were relevant. The CEQ's regulations became binding on all fed- eral government agencies, replaced some 70 different sets of agency regulations, and provided uniform standards applicable throughout the federal government for conducting environmental reviews. All federal agencies have developed guidelines and regulations for implementation of the CEQ regulations. Some agencies have very de- tailed guidelines, while others are more general in nature and follow the basic guidance of the CEQ. Although all agencies are implement- ing the same CEQ regulations, the specific agency guidelines and reg- ulations can differ substantially from one another. The environmental analyst must be aware that each agency (and usually state) has indi- vidual established methods of complying with CEQ regulations. Normally there is a good reason for these differences in procedure; each agency's guidelines are molded to the activities, structure, and policies characteristic of that particular agency. The environmental professional who works with numerous agencies and within numer- ous states should be forewarned that there frequently will be tangible and abundant differences in the "right" way to comply with CEQ reg- ulations (Fig. 1.2).

1.3 Role in Better Decisions

The language of the Executive Order reveals some of the early prob- lems that had evolved in the 1970s, by mandating that the regula- tions be ...designed to make the environmental impact statement more useful to decision makers and the public; and to reduce paperwork and the accu- mulation of extraneous background data, in order to emphasize the need to focus on real environmental issues and alternatives.

Whereas the guidelines were limited to subsection (C) of Section 102(2) of NEP A-the requirement for environmental impact state- ments-the regulations included all the Section 102(2) provisions for agency planning and decision making. The emphasis on better deci- sion making was a response to a problem of the environmental impact statement's becoming an end in itself and failing to establish the link between what is learned through the NEPA process and how the infor- mation can contribute to better agency decisions. Important informa- tion was being generated through the NEPA process, but it was resulting in large, encyclopedic environmental documents and was not playing a large enough role in concise comparison of the pros and cons of various proposed alternatives for a particular project or action. A multidisciplinary approach to environmental impact analysis is critical to the decision-making process and to the equal consideration of all areas of potential impact, when the tradeoffs of particular alter- natives are evaluated. Therefore, the professionals assessing impacts within a particular area of impact, such as natural resources, air qual- ity, or neighborhood efiects, must be educated and qualified within the disciplinary area they are assessing. The regulations addressed anoth- er emerging problem of environmental documents sometimes being prepared by a single individual, or a group of individuals of similar narrow range of qualifications, by requiring a List of Preparers in en- vironmental documents that clearly states the qualifications of the in- dividuals responsible for preparation of the various disciplinary sections of the environmental document.

1.4 Significance

Several important basics to environmental impact assessment are es- tablished in the CEQ regulations. The determination of significance is defined in terms of context and intensity. Context refers to the geo- graphical setting of a proposed project or action. When a proposed shopping center is evaluated, for example, the context for the deter- mination of significance is the immediate setting and the general community or area of influence, not the United States or the world as a whole. Intensity refers to the severity of impact. Criteria included in the CEQ regulations are

• The degree to which the proposed action affects public health or safety

• Presence of unique characteristics in the geographic setting or area, such as cultural resources, parklands, wetlands, ecologically critical areas, or wild and scenic rivers The degree to which the effects are likely to be highly controversial The degree to which the action would establish a precedent for fu- ture actions with significant effects The degree to which possible effects are highly uncertain or involve risks The degree of effect on sites listed in the National Register of Historic Places The degree of effect on threatened or endangered species or their habitats Whether the action conflicts with other federal, state, or local laws or requirements Most federal agencies and many state agencies have defined poten- tial projects under their jurisdiction which normally produce signifi- cant effects on the human environment and thus normally require preparation of a Draft and a Final Environmental Impact Statement. .The criteria of significance have expanded over time as a result of legislation, guidelines, court decisions, and other influences. Use of the word significant has become somewhat controversial; some agen- cies now refuse to include it in environmental documents because it assumes a judgment, and other agencies insist that every possible im- pact be tagged significant or nonsignificant. The identification of sig- nificant impacts often becomes critical to an agency's commitment to provide mitigation for an expected impact

1.5 Environment

The phrases effect on the human environment and environmental as- sessment often are misunderstood by many to mean natural resource effects. In fact, the range of considered environmental impacts is very comprehensive and includes artificial components of the environment as well as natural. Disciplinary areas of possible effects include eco- logical, aesthetic, historic, cultural, economic, social, and health. More detailed listings of possible impact categories are given in the discus- sion of the Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) format and in later chapters dealing with the content and procedures for environ- mental impact assessment documents.

1.6 Seoping

The CEQ regulations established the requirement of scoping at the early stages of environmental impact assessment and thereby rein- forced a commitment to an organized, systematic program of agency and public participation in the environmental process. Scoping refers to early coordination with interested and affected agencies and with the public. The scoping process, conducted early in the environmental impact assessment process, identifies (1) important issues and concerns, (2) areas not of concern for a particular project or action, and (3) other legislative or regulatory requirements. The scoping process, discussed in greater detail in Chap. 3, thus establishes the scope of additional studies, assists in staffing and scheduling of study activities, and pro- motes the compliance with all applicable legislative requirements within an integrated study and document.

1.7 Alternatives

The purpose of an environmental impact analysis, or evaluation, is to comparatively evaluate alternative courses of action. The range of al- ternatives considered must include a no-action, or no-build, alternative and other reasonable courses of action. Although early environmental studies considered alternatives as alternatives to the proposed action, current studies generally recognize the importance of giving all alter- natives equal status in the level or degree of analysis and design development.

1.8 Indirect and Cumulative Impacts

An interdisciplinary approach is used to consider and assess environ- mental impacts. The analysis considers potential consequences which are long-term and short-term; direct and indirect, or secondary; indi- vidual and cumulative; beneficial and adverse. Indirect, or secondary, effects are those that may occur removed in distance or time from the actual proposed project. An example is the construction of a major employment center, which may have direct ef- fects related to aesthetics in the area, traffic at nearby intersections, removal of natural vegetation, or interference with natural water- ways. Additional employment opportunities in the location, however, may prompt additional housing or commercial uses to support em- ployees. Potential impacts of this housing or additional business ac- tivity would then be a secondary, or indirect, effect of the construction of the employment center and should be evaluated to the best extent possible in the environmental analysis. Cumulative impacts occur in those situations where individual proj- ects or actions may not have a significant effect, but when combined with other projects or actions, the individual project's incremental contribution of adversity may cause an overall adverse cumulative ef- fect. Cumulative effects may be additive or interactive. Additive ef- fects are the same sources of impact affecting the same resource of the environment. If one project removes a service, such as day care, from a neighborhood, the impact may not be considered critical be- cause other similar services exist. But if other projects are proposed which remove these similar services, then a significant adverse cumu- lative effect may result. This is an example of an additive effect. Piecemeal physical destruction of wetlands is another example of an additive cumulative effect. An interactive effect is created when differing sources of impact af- fect the same environmental resource. A small stream relocation may be determined to not cause significant effects of erosion and sedimen- tation; but if other projects, even those outside of the jurisdiction of the sponsoring agency, add toxic pollutants to the same stream, then the contribution of sediment due to the first project may be consid- ered to have a significant adverse cumulative effect. This is an exam- ple of an interactive cumulative effect on the water quality and aquatic life of the stream. The environmental analyst must remember that indirect and cumu- lative effects are removed in distance or time. The assessment should include a review of future actions in a particular area and the probable impacts. For example, the Bureau of Land Management requires preparation of a Reasonably Foreseeable Future Action (RFFA) or Reasonably Foreseeable Development (RFD) scenario for the project area to assist in assessment of possible indirect and cumulative effects. Evaluations of indirect and cumulative effects have always been a requirement of the CEQ regulations for implementation of NEPA. The importance of, and attention given to, these types of impacts has intensified in recent years, particularly in highly developed, densely populated areas of the country.

1.9 Defining the Action or Project

The action or project being proposed must be carefully evaluated to determine the appropriateness ofits definition for environmental im- pact assessment and documentation. If this sounds complex, an ex- ample will show why this required definition of proposed action is important. A major, complex project is proposed which will likely have significant effects on the human environment. Instead of consid- ering the complete project or action in a single analysis or document, the proposed project or action is split into small pieces and each piece is analyzed in a separate document. The results of such a piecemeal approach will likely yield several pieces of project with minimal ef- fects and will not disclose the total project or action effect.

Proposed projects or actions evaluated within environmental stud- ies must be shown to have independent utilities (have uses on their own with no other required projects) and to not foreclose or preclude future options. Highway projects are good examples of the indepen- dent utility concept. A highway project evaluated in an environmen- tal document should have a logical beginning and end and should effectively respond to an identified need. A highway agency would not, for example, propose environmental impact studies of a bridge over a river in the middle of nowhere with no connections for separate evaluation in an environmental document. Obviously, whatever is proposed to connect to the bridge must be implemented to make the bridge a viable project, and therefore it needs to be included in the de- scription of the proposed project undergoing environmental analysis. In determining the scope of an Environmental Impact Statement, agencies must consider three types of actions (other than unconnected single actions): connected actions, cumulative actions, and similar ac- tions (CEQ 1989).

Connected actions

• Automatically trigger other actions that may require Environmen- tal Impact Statements (EISs)

• Cannot or will not proceed unless other actions are taken previously or simultaneously

• Are interdependent parts of a larger action and depend on the larg- er action for their justification

Similar actions have similarities that provide a basis for evaluating their environmental consequences together, such as common timing or geography.

1.10 Additional Required Considerations

In addition to the analysis of the environmental impacts of the pro- posed alternatives, the CEQ regulations state that the environmen- tal-consequences discussion should include

• Any adverse environmental effects which cannot be avoided

• The relationship between short-term uses of the human environ- ment and the maintenance and enhancement of long-term produc- tivity

• Any irreversible or irretrievable commitments of resources The way in which these requirements have been addressed over the years often has been awkward. Preparers of environmental doc- uments sometimes are confused about the proper location of thesediscussions within a particular document, and, in the case of the last two requirements, about the content and intent of the discus- sion.

Some agency outlines for EISs give these areas full section status, usually at the end of the document, following the environmental-con- sequences section. Other agencies add headings at the end of, but within, the environmental-consequences section. In other cases, it is assumed that these types of considerations have been generally in- cluded within the overall analysis for each subject area of potential effect, and no separate heading or status is given at all. Unavoidable adverse effects are best listed in the summary of an environmental document. The impacts to be highlighted are those which cannot be mitigated to acceptable levels. If a separate mitiga- tion summary or report is prepared, a listing of unavoidable adverse effects also is contained in that discussion. The relationship between short-term uses and the maintenance and enhancement of long-term productivity is usually a very generalized discussion. Short-term uses may include loss of existing resources for land clearance, disruption of neighborhoods, or benefits such as im- proved transportation, more efficient energy use, improved utility ser- vices, generation of economic stimuli, and creation ofjobs. Long-term productivity includes natural resources of the existing environment, the environmental quality of life, or perhaps a discus- sion of foreclosure of future options for use of land. This discussion is basically an identification of the tradeoffs involved. Often area or re- gional planning documents are a good source of information regarding the relationship of the proposed project or action to long-term produc- tivity. The assessment of irreversible and irretrievable commitments of resources customarily is approached in a general, rather than specif- ic, manner. Types of resources would include the actual materials, labor, and funds expended for a construction project. Some natural re- source losses are not likely reversible, even in a long-term time frame. Commitments of resources also may include increased public infra- structure and services, particularly for projects which promote inten- sified development.

1.11 Mitigation

All possible measures to mitigate potential impacts should be includ- ed in the proposed action. The CEQ regulations define mitigation to include

1. Avoiding the impact

2. Minimizing the impact by limiting the degree or magnitude of the action

3. Rectifying the impact by repairing, rehabilitating, or restoring the affected environment

4. Reducing or eliminating the impact over time

5. Compensating for the impact by replacing or providing substitute resources or environments

The study of, and commitment to, mitigation measures have be- come an extensive and meaningful part of the environmental impact assessment process. In many circumstances, potentially adverse im- pacts can be avoided or mitigated to acceptable levels through careful design and implementation of appropriate measures or techniques to reduce the severity of the effects. Erosion control measures, noise walls, relocation assistance, and construction of replacement habitat or wetlands are examples of successful mitigation techniques.

1.12 Related Environmental Requirements

In addition to NEPA and its CEQ implementation regulations, sever- al other environmental directives have evolved since the early 1970s. These directives are contained in Executive Orders, Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) regulations, legislation, department orders, Technical Advisories, policy memoranda, and numerous other docu- ments. Frequently, environmental directives relate to particular re- sources, or impact categories, such as historic resources, air quality, scenic rivers, or floodplains. These separate legislative and regulatory requirements are often the reason for inclusion of particular discus- sions within an environmental impact document. For resources sub- ject to such requirements specified in statute, regulation, or executive order, the environmental analyst must conduct studies to demon- strate no impact as well as possible impacts.

During the past 20 years, states also have implemented environ- mental legislation and regulations. Often these state regulations closely follow the corresponding federal agency. For example, a state department of transportation may use the Federal Highway Administration/Federal Transit Administration's guidelines. Some states have peculiar specific requirements which must be integrated with the federal guidelines on a project with shared federal and state funding or which must be followed alone on projects with only state or local funding. The names for the various thresholds of documentation also vary among states and often differ from those established in the CEQ regulations

1.13Litigation

Throughout the history of the NEP A and related environmental legis- lation and regulations, courts have influenced the environmental im- pact assessment process through case law interpretation. Often these cases deal with definitions within the law or regulations, such as sig- nificantly affecting the quality of the human environment, cumulative impacts, and all reasonable alternatives. The study of environmental law case history and its influence is a subject not addressed in this text. Most court decisions, however, are reflected in the current guid- . ance offered by particular agencies or within guidelines on implemen- tation of specific state environmental laws. It is possible to have an understanding of the environmental impact assessment process with- out an understanding and knowledge of all the influences that court decisions have had in shaping particular guidelines.

2.1 Preliminary Overview Assessments

Often the first step in an environmental impact assessment is a prelim- inary overview of the proposed project alternatives and locations. Several steps are included in the overview. First, the project alterna- tives' characteristics must be reviewed. Is the project a building, high- way, park, or land-use plan? What are the characteristics of the setting? Is the potentially affected area urban or rural, natural or made by humans? The purpose of the preliminary assessment is to identify the poten- tial for significant environmental impacts of the initial set of alterna- tives. Results then function to refine the alternatives and to determine the appropriate subsequent environmental documentation and process. The three thresholds of environmental processing and documentation are Categorical Exclusion (CE), Environmental AssessmentiFinding of No Significant Impact (ENFONSI), and Draft and Final Environmental Impact Statements (DEIS and FEIS) (Fig. 2.1). An initial assessment determines which documentation and processing methodology should be followed: (1) a Categorical Exclusion for minor projects and actions requiring no environmental clearance, (2) an EIS for projects and actions significantly affecting the quality of the human environment, and (3) an EA/FONSI for everything in between. Another purpose of an initial environmental overview is its contri- bution to the development of the project, or action, alternatives. Results from an early overview assessment can provide important "fatal flaw" infonnation to the designers or sponsors of the proposed project or action. By providing this information early in the project development process, the initial overview can lead to better designs or plans that avoid obvious pitfalls which may arise later in the plan- ning stages. Problems that arise late in the planning stages of any project or action normally are significantly more costly and time-con- suming to address. Several agencies and states have developed forms for conducting initial environmental overviews. Although the forms may have differ- ent names, such as Environmental Assessment Forms (New York State) or Environmental Checklists (California), they have all been developed to identify potentially significant impacts and issues early in the project planning process. Through a series of questions, the form leads the evaluator to simple answers, such as yes, no, or maybe, on the potential for specific significant impacts in the various disciplines to be assessed. Based on the answers to these questions, the fonns lead to a decision on the subsequent project processing re- quirements. A few examples of the types of questions included in an initial assessment overview, in areas of potential physical, biological, social, and economic impacts, follow: Will the proposal either directly of indirectly

Modify the channel or a river or stream?

• Reduce the critical habitat of any unique, threatened, or endan- gered species?

• Divide or disrupt an established community?

• Require the displacement of businesses or farms?

An immediately obvious observation about the types of questions listed in the above examples is that the answers to the questions are often not available until after a more detailed inventory of existing setting and a more thorough analysis of potential impacts have been made. Therefore, answers to questions are often maybe for any project of substance. Environmental assessment forms do help to determine that a Categorical Exclusion is appropriate for a very minor type of project or action, and sometimes they assist in focusing subsequent environmental studies for more complicated projects. Use of a formal form, however, often is not required. The experience and qualifica- tions of the professional conducting the initial overview will normally be sufficient to recognize the potential for significant impacts, or fatal flaws, in a particular project. The best methodology to use is to proceed systematically through all the categories of potential environmental effects and, based on the available preliminary infonnation about the proposed project or action and its environmental setting, determine whether the potential exists for impacts which normally would require preparation of an EIS. If it is uncertain whether major, significant environmental effects would occur, an EAlFONSI approach should be followed. The scoping process also will assist in this determination between an EAlFONSI or EIS direction of study. The CEQ regulations of 1978 required each federal agency to devel- op procedures to implement and supplement the regulations. Each agency's procedures were to include specific criteria for, and identifi- cation of, those typical classes of action which normally (1) do require Environmental Impact Statements, (2) do not require either an Environmental Impact Statement or an Environmental Assessment (Categorical Exclusions), and (3) require Environmental Assessments but not necessarily Environmental Impact Statements. In compliance with this directive, most federal agencies and many states have an es- tablished list of types of projects under their jurisdiction which nor- mally require the three thresholds of evaluation, documentation, and processing. For example, each agency within the Department of the Interior has prepared, as appendices to the departmental manual, in- formation on

1. NEPAresponsibilities

2. Guidance to applicants

3. Major actions normally requiring an EIS

4. Categorical Exclusions

If the particular project or action is clearly defined on one of these three lists of types of actions, then a preliminary environmental overview becomes more of a task in focusing subsequent studies and improving design or other characteristics of proposed alternatives, rather than determining the appropriate threshold of environmental documentation. Often, however, a particular project does not exactly meet all the conditions of the examples on these established lists. It is in these circumstances that the initial environmental overview be- comes most critical. One of the most important contributions of an initial overview as- sessment is the early input of environmental considerations to the de- sign or development of the project, action, or plan. If coordination is efficient among the various members of the team for the project or ac- tion, the information provided by an initial overview can lead to bet- ter projects with fewer potential environmental impacts. These "least environmentally damaging" alternatives are then the ones evaluated in the subsequent detailed environmental studies and public and agency review process.

To reduce paperwork, the CEQ regulations of 1978 established the Categorical Exclusion (CE). In doing so, the regulations recognized that many agencies have minor projects and activities which normally do not have an effect on the environment. Each federal agency has es- tablished criteria and, in most cases, a list of typical projects for which environmental evaluation normally is not required. Additionally, some agencies have published lists of exceptions to categorical exclusion, for projects which may otherwise be excluded but have particular charac- teristics that warrant more detailed studies. An example of the CE process is that used by the Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management (BLM) (1988). The BLM procedures for conducting a Categorical Exclusion review include these steps:

1. Ensure conformance with the land-use plan.

2. Review the DOl departmental and BLM lists of Categorical Exclusions to determine if the proposed action falls into one of the listed categories.

3. Check proposed action against the list of exceptions to determine if any apply

If exceptions apply, an Environmental Assessment (EA) or Environmental Impact Statement is required. If no exceptions apply, the proposed action may be categorically excluded. Procedures for processing a Categorical Exclusion vary among agencies and among states for state or locally funded projects. Typically, a brief documentation is required which explains how and why the particular proposed action meets the criteria, or is a named typical project, for a Categorical Exclusion. Explanatory text should accompany the basic document if the project does not exactly meet the definition of any particular listed typical project, but has been de- termined to produce no effect on the environment. Based on the de- gree of required additional documentation for these "exceptions" to the defined, listed projects, some agencies have established multiple levels of documentation required for Categorical Exclusions. Categorical Exclusion documentation remains within the agency and its files. No formal circulation to other agencies or public involve- ment procedures are required. Coordination with responsible agencies and/or the public may be included, however, in the documentation of applicability of the criteria for Categorical Exclusion to a particular unlisted project. If the initial evaluation and overview of the project result in uncer- tainty for classification as a Categorical Exclusion, the agency or responsible official may decide to proceed with preparation of an Environmental Assessment.

2.3 Environmental Assessment/Finding of No Significant Impact (EA/FONSI)

An EAlFONSI is the second threshold of environmental analysis and documentation. The level of detailed studies required is greater than that for a Categorical Exclusion, but less than that for an Environmental Impact Statement. The degree of analysis and docu- mentation conducted with an EA can vary significantly according to the complexity of the proposed project or action being assessed.

2.3.1 When an Environmental Assessment is appropriate

An Environmental Assessment-capital E, capital A, as compared with a generic (lowercase) environmental assessment or analysis-is a document prepared when a project does not readily fit into either a Categorical Exclusion or an Environmental Impact Statement catego- ry. The potential significance of environmental impact is not clearly established. The purpose of an EA is to provide sufficient evidence to determine whether the proposed project or action will require a full Environmental Impact Statement or a Finding of No Significant Impact. An EA is the selected threshold of documentation when im- pacts will occur but will be minor or can be successfully mitigated to acceptable levels.

2.3.2 Format and content

The format for an EA is established in CEQ regulations and, as with other required documents, is further refined by the sponsoring agency or state guidelines and regulations. An EA should have the following sections at a minimum:

I. Need for proposed action

II. II. Description of alternatives

III. III. Environmental impacts

IV. IV. List of agencies and persons consulted

The areas of potential impact to be evaluated follow those also used for an EIS. The difference between an EIS and an EA is that the num- ber of relevant issues for an EA project normally is fewer than those of a project for which an EIS is prepared. Early coordination, or scoping, should be conducted to (1) assist in determining which aspects of the proposed action have potential for social, economic, or environmental impact; (2) identify alternatives; (3) specify possible measures to miti- gate potential impacts; and (4) identify other environmental review and consultation requirements which should be met concurrently with the EA. In an EA, the description of the existing resources and environment of the affected area or site is contained in the same section as the dis- cussion of environmental impacts. Therefore, for example, the subsec- tion on water quality would begin with a description of area streams, groundwater resources, water supply system, and other features rele- vant to the understanding of impact. Then, in the same section, the discussion would include the impacts of the project on these resources. This format approach differs from that of an EIS, which separates the existing, or affected, environment and the environmental impacts, or consequences, into two separate main sections. An EA normally results in a FONSI, but can be revised to an EIS if studies reveal that significant impacts will occur. If the document is fi- nalized as an Environmental Assessment, the subsequent document is a FONSI. There are no "draft" and "final" Environmental Assessments as there are in the EIS threshold of documentation.

2.3.3 Processing

When completed, the availability of the EA for review is announced to the public and to interested federal, state, and local agencies. The no- tice of availability includes a brief description of the proposed project or action and its environmental impacts. All interested parties are in- vited to submit comments, in writing, within 30 days. Although a formal public hearing is not required, most agencies will conduct one if requested by an agency or by the public. There also is no formal requirement to circulate an EA to other agencies, organi- zations, or officials; but most sponsoring agencies do circulate and ofTer the opportunity for comment to appropriate federal and state agencies and locally affected municipalities or regions. The EA must be made available for public and agency review for 30 days prior to is- suing a FONSI.

2.3.4 Finding of No Significant Impact

After the 30-day review and comment period, if no significant adverse impacts are identified, the sponsoring agency may issue a FONSI. The FONS! is normally brief because it includes the EA or incorpo- rates it by reference. Often only a few pages long, the FONS! can be attached to the front of an EA to ensure that the EA remains with it as a reference.

The FONSI is the formal determination of the sponsoring agency that the proposed project or action will not have a significant adverse environmental impact and that an EIS will not be prepared. It briefly describes the reasons for this conclusion. Notice of availability of the FONSI is given to the public and to affected federal, state, and local agencies. Some agencies require-and it is always a good policy to prepare- a decision record at the conclusion of an EAlFONSI process. The record includes

• Identification of the selected alternative and the rationale for the decision

• The FONSI and attached EA

• Reasons why an EIS was not required

• A compliance and monitoring plan for any mitigation commitments made as part of the decision

2.4 Draft and Final Environmental Impact Statements

The most detailed procedure for analyzing potential environmental impacts of alternatives of a proposed project or action is the Environmental Impact Statement process. The use of the word draft in a Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) should not be confused to mean an internal draft or preliminary document not seen by others. The DEIS contains the final results of environmental stud- ies of proposed alternatives which are available for public and agency review. The DEIS is a "draft" because it compares all proposed alter- natives and is the document upon which the decision to proceed with any particular alternative is made. The DEIS also is the tool through which public and agency input is incorporated into this decision-mak- ing process. The Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS) docu- ments which alternative has been selected as the preferred and the reasons for that selection. Certain EIS processing documents and activities are specifically re- quired by the CEQ regulations, while others are agency-specific re- quirements, are common practice, or are needed to prepare the documents noted in the CEQ regulations. Figure 2.2a and b shows a recommended EIS process flow diagram for a fairly complex project. Not all the steps or documents contained in the figure, however, are necessarily required for every project. For example, the CEQ regula- tions require public participation and a public hearing, but not neces- sarily the public meetings noted in the flow diagram. Similarly, separate methodology and technical reports may not be appropriate for every project. In Fig. 2.2b, scoping, Notice of Intent, and Cooperating Agency Request are specifically noted as requirements in the regula- tions, whereas a written Plan of Study and an Environmental Overview are not. These tasks, however, are often necessary to prepare the Notice of Intent.

2.4.1 When an Environmental Impact Statement is appropriate

An Environmental Impact Statement is prepared for projects or ac- tions which will have a significant effect on the human environment. As noted previously, the CEQ regulations contain guidance on deter- mining the significance of impacts, and federal agencies have issued regulations or guidelines defining what actions within their jurisdic- tion normally require an EIS.

2.4.2 Use of previously prepared Environmental Impact Statements Prior to the actual beginning of a Draft and Final EIS process, exist- ing environmental documents should be reviewed. Under certain cir- cumstances, if the proposed project or action is covered within a previously prepared environmental document and meets all the rele- vant criteria for using that document, then no new EIS is required. This situation often arises in agencies, but environmental documents prepared by other agencies also can be used. If a previously prepared NEPA document fully covers a proposed action and no additional analysis is necessary, that determination should be properly docu- mented in the project files.

2.4.3 Notice of Intent The first formal step in the EIS process is the preparation of the Notice of Intent, a brief document announcing the intent of the spon- soring agency to prepare an EIS for its proposed project or action. In addition to a description of the project, the Notice of Intent contains a description of the scoping process to be used and an announcement of the formal scoping meeting, if one is to be held. A formal document in the process, the Notice oflntent is published in the Federal Register. As noted in Fig. 2.2a and b, several other project initiation activi- ties need to occur prior to the preparation of the Notice of Intent, in- cluding the development and screening of alternatives. The initial set of alternatives cannot be developed without first defining the purpose and need for the proposed project or action. A formulated plan for public participation and agency scoping also must be developed prior to the Notice oflntent.

2.4.4 Determination of lead and cooperating agencies

Other activities taking place at the initiation of EIS studies are the determinations of lead agency and cooperating agencies. These activi- ties are usually very straightforward. The lead agency is the agency supervising the preparation of the EIS. Cooperating agencies are those which have jurisdiction by law, usually through pennitting, or special expertise in any specific environmental impact associated with the proposed project. State or local agencies also can be desig- nated as cooperating agencies upon their request. Although designation of cooperating agencies is not usually a major effort, it is an activity that must be formally conducted and should not be overlooked. It is the responsibility of the lead agency to formal- ly request, in writing, other agencies to become cooperating agencies. If another agency has jurisdiction by law, that agency must become a cooperating agency. Agencies with specialized expertise may, upon their decision, choose to become cooperating agencies. Although the language of the CEQ regulations implies that a coop- erating agency should playa relatively significant role in the environ- mental analysis in its area of expertise, including making staff available and using its own funds, such involvement commonly does not occur.

2.4.5 Scoplng

The next step in the EIS process is early coordination and scoping. These areas are discussed in greater detail in Chap. 3 and consist of early contacts with interested agencies, with the purpose of defining areas of concern and focusing the subsequent environmental studies on relevant issues. The scoping and early coordination process is ex- tremely important in shaping the level of analysis, staff require- ments, and schedule of all subsequent activities in the preparation and processing of Draft and Final EISs.

2.4.6 Development of alternatives

Another activity that occurs early in the process is the initial develop- ment of alternatives and the subsequent screening of alternatives for a final list of those to be considered in the EIS studies. Alternatives are discussed in detail in Chap. 4. The initial set of alternatives will most likely be developed by the engineers, architects, or planners de- signing the proposed project prior to scoping. The screening process by which the initial list is reduced to a set of reasonable alternatives considered in the analysis process should have the input of an initial environmental overview for fatal flaws and the results and input from scoping and early coordination with interested agencies. These poten- tial environmental concerns are then considered with other criteria, such as costs, engineering factors, and community acceptance in re- ducing the number of alternatives to be considered. Depending on the type of proposed project, the alternatives may consist of alternative sites or locations for development or facilities.

2.4.7 Impact analysis

After the scope of study has been determined and the reasonable al- ternatives defined, the next activity is the analysis of environmental impacts. Activities begin with a description of the existing environ- ment and the assembly of relevant information and data. The evalua- tion and analysis of degree of impact follow. Considered impacts must include direct and indirect effects, cumulative effects, and long- and short-term effects, as discussed in Chap. 1. In the analysis process, potential mitigation measures are developed and explored. Content and procedures for analysis in the various disciplines of potential im- pacts are included in Chaps. 5 through 21. The preparation of separate methodologies and technical reports supporting the DEIS has become common practice, to limit the dis- cussion in Sections III and IV of the DEIS. These technical reports are prepared according to the discipline area and contain the detailed information on existing conditions, methodologies, analysis, and re- sults. The technical reports are then summarized in the DEIS. Technical reports supporting a DEIS can be as few as 4 or 5 or as many as 20. Each agency has its own preference. At a minimum, technical reports are normally prepared for

• Socioeconomic impacts, to include community impacts, land use, economic impacts, visual effects, relocations, traffic, and pedestrian and bicycle travel

• Natural resources, to include water quality, vegetation, wildlife, scenic rivers, floodplains, wetlands, and coastal zones

• Air quality

• Noise

Separate reports also may be required in discipline-specific legisla- tion or regulations. Examples are reports for historic and archaeologi- cal resources in compliance with the National Historic Preservation Act and its guidelines, sole-source aquifer reports, wetland delin- eations, and wildlife surveys. Although an attempt should always be made to include as many of these requirements as possible in the DEIS for simultaneous circulation and review, specific timing or coordination requirements may dictate the preparation of separate reports. Some agencies are more comfortable with separate technical re- ports for each impact area, such as water quality, vegetation, wildlife, visual impacts, floodplains, and land use. The decision to prepare a technical report should be based on the need to have a separate docu- ment to hold a large amount of material not needed by the average reader of the DEIS for an understanding of the setting and impacts of the proposed project. Technical reports serve the purpose of providing supporting data to the information summarized in the DEIS. The DEIS serves the pur- pose of providing a comparative summary of adverse and beneficial results among the reasonable alternatives being considered to result in a decision on the preferred alternative.

2.4.8 Format and content of a DEIS

Following the completion of analysis, the DEIS is prepared. The basic fonnat of an EIS is established within the NEPA, the CEQ regula- tions, and individual agency guidelines. At a minimum, a DEIS should have the following components:

Cover sheet

Summary Table of Contents

I. Purpose of and Need for Proposed Action

II. II. Alternatives

III. III. Affected Environment

IV. Iv. Environmental Consequences

V. List of Preparers

VI. List of Agencies, Organizations, and Persons to Whom Copies of the DEIS are Sent

VII. Index

VIII. Appendices

The CEQ regulations prescribe the use of concise, clear language in an EIS and the limitation of data and infonnation to those that are relevant. A limit on the number of pages also is recommended. These directions were prompted by the tendency for EISs to become volumi- nous documents full of extraneous material not relevant to the deci- sion at hand (i.e., to select a preferred alternative). The author of an Ers should always critically review all the information to determine whether its inclusion in an ErS is necessary and relevant. The level of analysis also should be directly dictated by the magni- tude of expected impact, as determined by the initial overview studies and results of the scoping and early coordination efforts. The first main section of an ErS covers the Purpose and Need for the Proposed Action. This chapter is a very critical component to the document as a whole, and its importance should not be underestimat- ed. A brief description of the proposed action should be given. Then the need for the action should be thoroughly described. Often this can be accomplished by reference to planning documents or other long- range plans that dictate a need for the action. The discussion usually begins with a description of the deficiencies or problems in the cur- rent situation, i.e., without the proposed action. Goals and objectives for the project should be established that di- rectly relate to the deficiency or problem that the proposed project is attempting to address. These should be outlined in Section 1. This section of the ErS becomes the basis upon which the alternatives and analysis of environmental effects are ultimately considered. Although documented in the DErS or EA, the definition of purpose and need is considered much earlier in the process than the prepara- tion of the environmental document. As noted in Fig. 2.2b, it is one of the initial project activities because the development of alternatives is based on the identjfied needs and deficiencies. Evaluation criteria and parameters to be used to determine how well each proposed alter- native responds to the purpose and need also should be developed early in the process, prior to actually conducting impact analysis. The Alternatives section of the DErS describes all reasonable alter- natives being considered, including the proposed action and the no-ac- tion alternatives. Alternatives are discussed in detail in Chap. 4. The no-action, or no-build, alternative is defined as existing and future conditions without any improvements to correct the deficiencies iden- tified in Section r (Purpose and Need). It should include, however, other planned projects for the area.

Agencies differ in opinions on the progress that other projects must have made to be included in the definition of the no-build alternative. Some do not allow inclusion of any proposed or planned projects un- less they are currently under construction. Some agency guidelines call for inclusion of only planned and funded projects, and other agen- cies include anything on adopted planning documents. The no-action alternative has the purpose of establishing a basis upon which all other proposed build alternatives are evaluated. Therefore, its definition should be agreed upon by all parties, after careful consideration. The definition of the no-action alternative can cause the results of environmental impact analyses to vary signifi- cantly since many impacts are measured by the degree of change compared with the no-build alternative. The Alternatives section of the DEIS contains a detailed descrip- tion of each proposed alternative, including physical characteristics, operating features, costs, schedule, description of the construction process, and all other relevant features of the proposed action. Readers should have a comprehensive understanding of what is being proposed and how the proposed alternatives differ from one another and from the no-build alternative.

The Affected Environment section of the DEIS contains information on the existing setting. Although the organization and format vary, the following areas should be included, if relevant to the proposed project and its impacts:

Land use and zoning

Social and neighborhood characteristics

•Demographic characteristics

Housing Travel patterns

Stability

Pedestrian and bicycle travel

Community facilities and services (fire and police, hospitals, schools, churches, day care, etc.)

Recreational facilities

Economic factor

• Taxes

• Existing business community

• Proposed developments

Traffic and transportation

Energy

Historic and archaeological resources

Visual resources

Air quality

Noise levels

Geology and soils (including farmland)

Environmental health and public safety (hazardous wastes)

Water resources

• Groundwater

• Surface water

• Water supply and wastewater systems

• Wild and scenic rivers

Wetlands

Floodplains and coastal zones

Vegetation and wildlife

The most common error in the preparation of a DEIS is the inclu- sion of entirely too much information in this section. This is not al- ways the fault of the preparer, however. Frequently agencies, now used to seeing an abundance of descriptive information, will request detailed information in their area of expertise. Motives for this re- quest are understandable-to expand the data base of information in their field at no cost to the particular agency itself. The environmen- tal analyst must remain focused, however, on the particular data needed for determining the impact of the project or action being eval- uated.

The level of detail in Section III is directly driven by the anticipated magnitude of impact. It is accepted that certain basic descriptive infor- mation must be included to establish a complete setting of social, nat- ural, and economic features of the proposed action. Too often, however, this section has become an encyclopedic accumulation of information not necessary to understand the degree of impact subsequently pre- sented under the same headings in Section IV, Environmental Consequences. A good rule of thumb is that Section III of the DEIS should be the smallest of the four major sections. The Environmental Consequences section of the DEIS contains the results of the assessment of impacts. It can be organized by impact category or by alternative; the usual format is by impact category. The list of categories should follow those used in Section III, Affected Environment. As noted previously, this section should focus on relevant environ- mental issues and impacts. Some areas of potential effect must be in- cluded, however, regardless of expected impact. Resources protected by statute, regulation, or executive order must be addressed in all en- vironmental documents. When such protected resources do not exist within the area or will not be affected, the EIS must document that the resource was considered in compliance with the applicable regula- tion, and statements must be made as to why the resource win not be affected or why the regulation does not apply. For example, the DEIS may contain statements such as "There are no designated wild and scenic rivers in the project area" or "No listed threatened or endan- gered species or habitat is located within the area of potential adverse effect" or "None of the proposed project alternative sites are located within a coastal zone or floodplain." These negative declarations are necessary because of the specific laws and regulations applicable to these resources. Acceptable methods for ruling out possible impacts are discussed within Chaps. 5 through 21. Although it is not required by the CEQ regulations, a DEIS should contain another section following the Environmental Consequences section. Frequently entitled Coordination and Consultation, this sec- tion documents all coordination and consultation conducted through- out the project with agencies and the public. It describes the scoping process and any public information meetings held on the project. Agency coordination is further discussed in Chap. 3.

2.4.9 DEIS processing

When the DEIS is completed, it is circulated to all federal, state, and local agencies having jurisdictional or expertise interest in the pro- posed action. In some cases the summary of the DEIS can be circulat- ed in lieu of the entire document. Notices are placed in newspapers to notify the public of the availability of the DEIS and at what locations in the community it may be reviewed. A DEIS can be purchased by any member of the public for the printing cost of the document. Availability of the DEIS also is published in the Federal Register through the U.s. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). All notices invite comments on the DEIS and give the due date for comments. The usual review period for a DEIS is 45 days. In certain circumstances this can be shortened to 30 days, but often in practice it extends to 60 days. Some regulations, such as those of the Department of the Interior, require a 60-day minimum review period for DEISs prepared by their agencies. Individual review agencies also can re- quest an extension of time to prepare comments. The public notice of availability of the DEIS and the cover letter cir- culating the document to agencies and officials customarily include information on the public hearing. A public hearing is required on a DEIS and must be held within the 45-day public and agency review period, but not sooner than 30 days after availability of the DEIS is announced. Following the public hearing and the end of the public review period, all comments received are reviewed and evaluated. Any required addi- tional analysis is identified and conducted. Alternatives and mitigation measures may be refined based on comments received. Responses to each substantive comment are prepared. Based on the review of all comments received and the results of any additional studies, the sponsoring agency then selects the preferred alternative. This selection process should be a systematic evaluation procedure, and it is discussed more fully in Chap. 22. The process then continues to the preparation of the Final EIS.

2.4.10 Final Environmental Impact Statement

The FEIS documents the choice of the preferred alternative. It con- sists of the DEIS with modifications. In some cases, where minor changes are required, an abbreviated form of the FEIS can be used which merely attaches any changes or required findings to the DEIS. Normally, however, the DEIS is revised to become the FEIS. Section II, Alternatives, now includes a discussion identifying the preferred alternative, the reasons it was selected, and the reasons other alternatives were not selected. Revisions are made through- out the text of the DEIS where changes have been made in re- sponse to comments received. To enable the reader to recognize where such changes have occurred, the new text is often designated in some way, either by placing a line in the margin of the page or by showing new, revised text in italic. Sometimes the old text remains but is struck out to further assist the reader in recognizing the changes. A new section is added to the end of the document. It can be titled Comments Received on the DEIS and Responses. It documents the public hearing and summarizes the major comments from the hear- ing. It also contains copies of all written comments received from agencies or the public, with written responses to all substantive com- ments. Ifthe text has been revised in response to a comment, this sec- tion refers the reader to the page or section of text in the main body of the report.

Technical reports usually are not updated or revised as part of the Final EIS process. Because the FEIS has the purpose of documenting the choice of a preferred alternative, revised technical reports would no longer contribute to the decision-making process. Any revisions or refinements of technical studies are normally contained in the text of the FEIS or in the responses to comments received. Upon completion, the FEIS is circulated to all interested agencies and to any agency or person making a substantive comment on the DEIS. Notice of availability of the FEIS is placed in local newspapers and otherwise advertised to the affected community. The circulation period for an FEIS is 30 days. Availability of the FEIS is published in the Federal Register.

2.4.11 Record of Decision

When an agency makes a decision on the proposed action, a Record of Decision (ROD) is prepared. The draft ROD can be forwarded to the EPA with the FEIS for filing. The final ROD cannot be filed until at least 30 days after the publication of the availability of the FEIS.

The ROD states what the decision is, identifies all alternatives con- sidered, gives the rationale for the selected decision, and states whether all means to avoid or minimize environmental harm from the alternative selected have been adopted, and if not, why not. A moni- toring and enforcement program should be included in the ROD where applicable for any mitigation. A Mitigation Report, sometimes titled differently, can be prepared separately in conjunction with the FEIS and ROD. It should list in detail the mitigation commitments made in the FEIS and establish a monitoring and enforcement program or plan for subsequent stages of the project. This report follows the project through all subsequent stages of design and construction.

2.5 Tiered Environmental Impact Statements

Another type of EIS activity and process is the tiering of environmen- tal documents. Tiering refers to completing one general EIS on an overall or very comprehensive policy or program and then using more specific EISs for site-specific or smaller actions and projects without duplicating relevant parts of the general document. The more specific EISs incorporate the broader, general document by reference and focus on the particular impacts of the proposed action which are not specifically covered in the general document.

2.6 Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement

Sometimes a proposed action or project changes after circulation of the DEIS. These may be changes in the characteristics of the project or changes in the setting. When these changes are relevant to envi- ronmental concerns and have a bearing on the decision to be made, a Supplemental DEIS (SDEIS) and Supplemental FEIS (SFEIS) are prepared and processed. The supplemental DEIS and FEIS also are prepared when an ex- tended period has elapsed (normally 3 years) since circulation of the DEIS with no subsequent action or preparation of an FEIS. If signifi- cant changes are thought to have occurred in either the project or other available information on the setting, then an SDEIS and SFEIS are prepared and circulated in the same way as a normal DEIS and FEIS. Although scoping is not formally required for a supplemental docu- ment, it is frequently conducted, particularly if a significant period of time has elapsed.

2.7 Reevaluation

At major points in project development, the project and its potential impacts must be reevaluated to determine if the conclusions in the DEIS and FEIS remain valid. These major points are project-specific but may include a passage of at least 3 years with no action on the proposal, the beginning of the final design phase, or the beginning of the construction phase. A reevaluation report is prepared to document that no significant adverse impacts will occur that were not identified within the original DEIS and FEIS. The reevaluation report need not be circulated to other agencies or made available to the public, but remains wi.thin the project files of the sponsoring agency.

3.1 Purpose ot Scoping

Scoping is used to

• Define the proposed action

• Request cooperating agencies

• Identify what's important

• Identify what's not important

• Set time limits on studies

• Determine staff requirements of the study team

• Collect background information

• Identify required permits

• Identify other regulatory requirements

• Determine the range of alternatives

The scoping process should be specifically designed to suit the needs of the individual project or action being proposed. It can be a formal, extensive process or an informal, simple process. There are many options for the extent and format of meetings, mailings, and agency and local group contacts.

3.2 Defining the Proposed Action

Scoping refers not only to the scope of studies in the environmental impact assessment, but also to the scope of the action being considered and evaluated. As discussed in Sec. 1.9, determining the appropriate scope of a project or action requires an investigation of possible con- nected actions that should be included in the definition of the proposed project or action. Connected actions should be combined and analyzed in a single Environmental Assessment/Finding of No Significant Impact or Draft and Final Environmental Impact Statements. Scoping is conducted early in the environmental analysis process. Prior to scoping, it is important for the sponsoring agency to prepare an information packet describing the proposed project or action. Scoping can not be productive until sufficient information is known about the proposed project or action to identify potentially affected parties, ex- plain the need behind the proposed action, describe a preliminary list of alternatives and environmental issues, and present a clear descrip- tion of what is being proposed that can productively let agencies and the public know on what they are being asked to comment. An Environmental AssessmentlFinding of No Significant Impact threshold of study does not absolutely require a scoping process, but most agencies find it an asset and do conduct scoping. For projects and actions requiring an Environmental Impact Statement, the scoping process is required and cannot be initiated until after publication of the Notice of Intent to Prepare an Environmental Impact Statement in the Federal Register. If informal scoping has been conducted prior the publication of the Notice of Intent, the Notice should clearly indi- cate that written comments suggesting impacts and alternatives for study will still be considered.

3.3 Identifying Issues and Concerns

Probably the most meaningful reason for scoping is to determine what issues are important, i.e., what deserves the most detailed and intense study efforts. A general overview of the proposed project or action and the surrounding area will identify the obvious issues re- quiring investigation. For example, a manufacturing plant is pro- posed adjacent to a river. The plant process will produce a waste liquid, which will be discharged into the river. A key issue for study in this project will be the effect of the plant discharge on the chemistry and aquatic life of the river. After a preliminary overview of the proposed project and an initial identification of some of the key issues and concerns for study, the study team should further identify issues through contact with agen- cies and with the public.

Through early coordination letters, local, state, and federal agen- cies with a possible interest in the project should be contacted. The early coordination, or scoping, letter will give the following types of information:

• A description of the proposed project (information packet)

• Identification of the project sponsor and study team

• A preliminary list of alternatives for project design or location

• The preliminary list of identified issues and concerns

• The proposed length of time for the study. The scoping letter should ask for the following types of information:

• Any special concerns of the agency

• Any required permits

• Suggestions on additional alternatives

• Relevant information and data on the surrounding area

• Future contact person within the agency

Sometimes a questionnaire can be developed to include in the scop- ing or early coordination letter. The questionnaire has the advantage of enabling an agency representative to quickly fill in the blanks and return the information, rather than go through the process of prepar- ing a more formal typed-letter response. The questionnaire can re- quest information on required permits, the suitability of the preliminary list of alternatives, any critical issues or concerns, and a future contact person for the agency. Some states and/or agencies have established standardized forms for agency scoping. Because the same forms are used consistently, the federal, state, and local agency representatives are familiar with the questionnaires and the process. Such standardized forms are particu- larly useful when the contacted agency expects no particular environ- mental impact due to the proposed project or action within the agency's area of expertise or jurisdiction. With little effort, the agency can go on record with an appropriate response to the scoping request

Early coordination with agencies and local organizations often leads to identification of key issues not readily obvious from the initial overview of the project and the surrounding area. For example, the proposed manufacturing plant is to be sited on a parcel of vacant land. Coordination with the local and state historic preservation agencies reveals that the land has been identified as containing important ar- chaeological resources. Alternative sites for the plant are suggested. Early coordination and scoping also ensure that important issues and concerns are identified at the very beginning of the study process. The scoping activities reduce the possibility of overlooking important issues deserving detailed study. A key concern identified late in the process can have a severe effect on the overall schedule and costs of the project. For example, after the manufacturing plant has been designed and the environmental analysis studies have been completed, the Draft Environmental Impact Statement is reviewed by the local development and land-use agency. The agency notes that a school is proposed across the street. The noise, fumes, and traffic generated by the plant will be incompatible with the proposed school. The local agency strongly recom- mends a different site or a different design of the entire plant facility, and it threatens to litigate the project in court if its wishes are ignored. The above example illustrates another important benefit of the scop- ing process. If agencies, the public, and private organizations are con- tacted and asked to participate early in the study through the scoping process, any late comments or concerns raised for the first time after the Environmental Assessment or Draft Environmental Impact Statement is finished then require much less serious consideration than they would have merited if raised during the scoping process.

3.4 Identifying Negligible Effects

Another purpose of the scoping process is to identify those areas of pos- sible impact that do not necessarily apply to the project being consid- ered. Identifying what's not so important is just as valuable as identifying major concerns, because it focuses studies on relevant issues. The environmental impact study process has been criticized over the years for being too time-consuming and too costly. Sometimes, the study team can get caught up in details and the compilation of data not really productive to the decision at hand. Early scoping can iden- tify areas of possible effects with minimal magnitude or probability of occurrence where limited time and effort will be consumed in gather- ing information, in analysis, and in the content of the documentation. For example, the manufacturing plant is proposed on a parcel of land that is currently a totally paved parking lot with no existing veg- etation. The surrounding area also is urbanized and contains buildings and pavement. The biologist member of the study team spends months gathering data on area wildlife species. The environmental document, in the affected environment section, contains detailed descriptions of every known species of wildlife in the surrounding coun- ty, including habitat requirements, feeding habits, and population levels and characteristics. The impact discussion concludes that no wildlife species are affected by the proposed project. In the above example, the assessment spent too much time on col- lection of information not relevant to the possible impacts of the proj- ect. This information contributed nothing to the decision of whether to proceed with the project, and added to the total length of the envi- ronmental document. An early coordination letter to wildlife agencies would have revealed there was little potential for impact and that no detailed studies were necessary. Environmental studies must be conducted at all times with an awareness of the study purpose in producing better decisions. Information in an environmental impact document should focus on those issues important to the decision on whether to proceed with a project; there should not be encyclopedic volumes of information that contribute nothing to the decision at hand.

Sometimes during the scoping process, the public or agencies are reluctant to say that something is not important and tend to desire to include all possible impacts in the detailed analysis. By specifically focusing a task of scoping on identifying those less significant impacts not warranting detailed study, the scoping participants are more will- ing to produce productive input. This identification can be assisted by requesting or referencing a specific input on how the participants feel that the suggested analysis will actually make a difference in the de- cision-making process. Although particular impact categories ruled by statute, regulation, or Executive Order can be eliminated from detailed study during scoping, the environmental document should clearly contain compli- ance documentation with the applicable statute or regulation. Often such compliance requires a statement of why no impact is expected, with documentation, such as copies of correspondence from jurisdic- tional agencies. 3.5 Time and Staff The scoping process also assists in determining the schedule for the overall study and its parts and the staff requirements. The number of areas requiring detailed analysis and an agreement on the level of de- tail for study methodologies are required to set realistic scheduling goals for study completion

The disciplines to be included on the study team and the time com- mitment of each also can be estimated with greater accuracy after scoping. If a project is likely to have minimal natural resources im- pacts, the number of biologists, ecologists, and water quality experts assigned to the project will be reduced.

3.6 Gather Relevant Information In addition to informing interested agencies and groups of the pro- posed project and soliciting issues and concerns, the scoping, or early coordination, letter can serve the purpose of gathering infonnation necessary to the study. Examples may include requesting census data, land-use and comprehensive plans, and economic data; infonnation on endangered and/or threatened species; coastal zone management plans; or flood hazard maps. The infonnation requested will vary by project and by agency. The most important thing to remember is that all requested infonnation should.be relevant and necessary. Do not ask for infonnation or data that is not needed. For example, a reservoir is proposed in an undevel- oped forest area at least 20 miles from the nearest town. There is no in- dication that there would be any secondary effects on the towns. Infonnation on wildlife, water quality, vegetation, recreation, etc., is re- quested from appropriate local, state, and federal agencies and organiza- tions. Unless there are extenuating circumstances or secondary impacts, it would not be necessary to request all the available detailed census in- fonnation on population, employment, and income levels of the towns. A brief overview of infonnation, as a basis for explaining why these types of social and economic impacts would not occur, would be sufficient. Similarly, a project proposed in a totally urbanized city may place little emphasis on natural resources. Scoping letters to natural re- sources agencies should describe the project, ask if there are concerns, and ask for identification of any pennits. Little, if any, additional in- fonnation should be requested.

3.7 Preliminary Development of Alternatives

A preliminary list of alternatives being considered should be included in the scoping letter. Alternatives are further discussed in Chap. 4. Depending on the type of proposed project, alternatives may include alternative actions, alternative locations, or different types of facili- ties. The no-action alternative is always included as a viable option and for comparison with the action, or build, alternatives. The early coordination process should specifically ask for review and comments on proposed alternatives

Computer programs are now available that can print out names and addresses of residents by census tract or block divisions. Such informa- tion is normally available from local or county agencies. Additionally, local planning agencies can assist in identifying any organized neigh- borhood groups in the project area. It may be useful to hold individual meetings with such neighborhood groups or organizations, depending on the characteristics and issues of the specific proposed project or ac- tion. At certain times in the project schedule, public meetings are partic- ularly useful:

1. When the list of alternatives being considered has been refined

2. When the alternatives have been designed to a greater level to pro- vide additional information on design details, such as preliminary right-of-way boundaries for a highway project

3. When preliminary results of environmental studies are available

4. When the draft environmental document becomes available for public and agency review

In many situations, the meeting held during the review period for the draft environmental document will be a hearing rather than a less formal meeting. Public hearings, however, do not need to be for- mally structured. Experience has shown that a good format for any public meeting or hearing is an open house. The open house has the advantage of providing a longer time for attendance; an informal, hands-on opportunity for the public to review engineering drawings, environmental results, and other information; a one-on-one interac- tion with members of the study team to ask specific questions; and a lack of opportunity for grandstanding or presentation of incorrect in- formation, as may occur with a more formal type of hearing format where individual speakers are given a certain length of time and there is no discussion or feedback. An open house can be an official hearing by providing official court recorders to take statements in a separate room or area.

3.10 Continuing Public and Agency Coordination

Through public meetings, newsletters, newspaper coverage, circula- tion of flyers, or perhaps the formation of citizens' advisory groups or steering committees, the public should be kept well aware of the progress of studies. Often it is difficult for the general public to un- derstand the length of time required for particular studies. It is there- fore important for the study team to make periodic contact with the general public to reassure that the project studies are proceeding. In some cases, the purpose may be to explain why particular delays have occurred and the environmental studies are not proceeding according to the original schedule presented during scoping. The public participation program is key to establishing the credibil- ity of the study and staff with the local community. It is also the major ingredient to identification of real issues, concerns, and oppor- tunities. As discussed in subsequent chapters of this text, agency coordina- tion and consultation will continue throughout the environmental im- pact assessment process in many particular areas of study. In some areas of potential impact, agency consultation arises in developing ap- propriate study methodologies, field surveys, opinion on impact analy- sis conclusions, and concurrence that the studies have been conducted in sufficient depth to accurately identify impacts. Specific agency coor- dination and consultation required by law or regulations must be doc- umented in the draft or final environmental document as proof that compliance with the law has been successfully accomplished.

Efficient agency coordination is essential to the successful comple- tion of the environmental analysis and to the overall timely progress of a proposed project or action. Most agencies have specialized areas of expertise and jurisdiction. Because of this differing responsibility, con- flicts can occur when several differing agency resources or responsibil- ities are involved in the assessment of a proposed project or action. An example of this potential conflict is highlighted in the discussion of the Environmental Protection Agency's and U.S. Department of Transportation's differing responsibilities related to growth in Sec. 5.4 and in Fig. 5.l.

When agencies cannot coordinate and compromise, the environ- mental impact assessment process becomes deadlocked. Schedules and progress are shattered. The purpose of the process-to lead to better decisions-is defeated.

The causes of a lack of productive agency interaction on a particu- lar project may be many. Lack of adequate staff or budget may delay timing of necessary meetings, field reviews, or comments on a pro- posed methodology. Often, however, the cause relates to the differing responsibilities noted above and the failure to compromise or make successful efforts to resolve conflicts. Two examples of potential diffi- culties are considered below. The first difficulty sometimes experienced is the inability of the participating agency staff member to make a decision. In some cases, the staffer may not be authorized to make decisions; in other situa- tions, the staffer may be reluctant to make decisions because of a fear of subsequent consequences and/or a lack of accountability. For exam- ple, if an agency does not make a decision to compromise, or accept a particular methodology, or agree with impact analysis results, there can be no future ramifications, such as criticism or litigation. An example of a timely decision problem was a project located with- in a geographical area possibly containing endangered species. Surveys for the species needed to begin immediately, to meet project schedules and to ensure appropriate time-of-year sampling. Before any surveys for the species were conducted, written agreement on the proposed methodology, or protocol, was requested from the agency with jurisdiction. The agency staff noted that the currently accepted protocol was being revised and the new methodology would be ready in an estimated-but not certain-6 months. The staff indicated that if the current protocol were used, the survey would only have to be re- peated with the new protocol at a later date, and they refused to agree to any protocol. This agency response exhibits a lack of account- ability and a total disregard for productive agency coordination. The second example sometimes occurs with relatively inexperienced staff who have been in their position for a short time. The problem can arise especially in situations where the agency has jurisdictional au- thority in the fonn of issuing a pennit or signing off on an analysis when such pennit or sign-off is absolutely required for the proposed project or action to proceed. The feeling of power that the staffer has over what may sometimes be a very large and important project can sometimes result in an attitude of obstinacy and unwillingness to com- promise. Fortunately, the above examples are most often the exception rather than a common occurrence. Agencies should, however, careful- ly review their staff and policies to ensure full and timely consulta- tion and coordination in the spirit of the important mandate of NEP A and the environmental impact assessment process in general. Such interaction is essential to efficient and beneficial decisions in consid- ering the environmental effects of proposed alternative.

4.1 Purpose and Need

The foundation of alternatives development requires first establishing, in detail, the deficiencies of the status quo and the need for any action at all. For transportation projects, the need is based on the deficiencies of the existing transportation system, which may be safety, insufficient capacity to handle existing or projected traffic volumes, or perhaps an inability to meet air quality standards for a region. A National Forest Management Plan may require updating because of a regulatory re- quirement for timely reevaluation, a change in use demand or objec- tives, or an indication that the present management techniques are not producing the desired results. A new prison may be proposed be- cause of overcrowding at existing facilities. A new low-income housing project may be based on a deficiency of supply versus existing and pro- jected demand. The study of purpose and need has three basic steps:

1. Define the deficiencies of the existing circumstances.

2. Determine specific needs based on the defined deficiencies.

3. Establish explicit goals and objectives to meet the needs.

The written purpose-and-need discussion will become the first sec- tion of the Environmental Assessment (EA) or Draft Environmental Impact Statement. It should be written in a clear, logical manner that methodologically leads to the adopted list of goals and objectives for the proposed project or action. Depending on the type and size of the proposed project or action, review of and concurrence with the pur- pose-and-need summary should be obtained from interested federal, state, and particularly local agencies and officials. The importance of this step in the environmental impact assess- ment process cannot be overemphasized. The goals and objectives will form the basis for the later development of evaluation criteria by which to compare results of studies among proposed alternatives. Establishing the goals and objectives first, before any environmental studies commence, ensures a credible and legitimate alternatives evaluation which cannot be accused of being slanted or influenced by environmental study results. For example, subsequent chapters on specific disciplinary areas of impact assessment include discussions of several laws and regula- tions which refer to practicable and feasible alternatives. Because needs and objectives are established first, and receive concurrence from appropriate agencies and officials, any alternative that does not meet the needs and objectives can legally and legitimately be consid- ered not practicable or feasible

4.2 Developing a Preliminary Range of Alternatives

If the purpose-and-need activity has been efficiently completed, the development of an initial range of alternatives will logically follow. The range should include consideration of all possible ways to re- spond to identified needs and meet established goals and objectives, including actions that may be outside the jurisdiction of the project- sponsoring agency.

For example, alternatives developed to respond to a transportation deficiency may include

• Constructing a new highway at the location of the problem

Constructing a new highway or widening an existing route at an- other location that may divert traffic away from the problem area

Widening existing highways

Providing HOV (high-occupancy vehicle) lanes

Providing increased bus service

Constructing or extending commuter rail systems

Improving traffic signal timing, adding left-turn lanes or other such measures to improve traffic flow

Implementing inspection and maintenance programs to check vehi- cles for emissions

Switching to natural gas vehicles to limit air pollutants

Encouraging major employers to offer incentives for carpool employees

Encouraging major employers to implement staggered work hours

Recommending that proposed major traffic generators, such as shopping centers, major employers, or housing developments, be lo- cated in alternative geographic areas or sites

Coordinating with local planning officials to control potential future traffic problems through rezoning or limiting permits

The above examples illustrate that the initial range of alternatives should not be limited by preconceived solutions. A full range of op- tions that could respond to the identified needs should be created for initial consideration. The examples also illustrate the value of estab- lishing specific goals and objectives. If, say, the stated goal is to im- prove traffic flow conditions, any of the alternatives may meet that goal because it is too general. Therefore, it would not be possible to comparatively evaluate the responsiveness of each alternative in meeting established needs during the alternative screening process.

Depending on the type of project being proposed, the initial set of alternatives may center on a comprehensive range of alternative sites, or locations, for a particular facility. The preliminary site analy- sis study will include a list of all possible sites that meet identified needs. Needs in this situation may include such items as minimum required lot size, accessibility to transportation facilities, or compati- ble adjacent zoning.

4.3 The Screening Process

4.4 The next step in the logical, systematic process is the screening of the initial set of alternatives to reach a preliminary list of reasonable al- ternatives for the initiation of scoping. For this activity, a list of pre- liminary evaluation criteria is developed. The list may include such items as

4.5 • Efficiency in responding to stated needs and objectives

4.6 • A maximum cost based on available funding

4.7 • Political acceptance

4.8 • Expected public controversy

4.9 • Design feasibility

4.10 • Site size or configuration requirements

4.11 • Engineering constraints

4.12 • Significant, obvious environmental effect

The environmental study will be the environmental overview dis- cussed in Chap. 2. Sometimes referred to as a constraints assessment or fatal-flaw analysis, the environmental overview will investigate the proposed project or action characteristics and location for possible severe environmental effects. Examples may be

• Existence of an endangered-species-critical habitat

• Wetlands destruction

• Excavation required where there is an existing cemetery

• Required destruction of a National Register historic or archaeologi- cal site

• Potential severe noise impacts on hospitals, schools, museums, or li- braries

• Required destruction or alteration of a significant visual amenity

• Location within a Native American religious site

• An obvious contribution of air pollutants to exceed national or state air quality standards

• An obvious discharge of wastes which will not meet water quality standards or hazardous materials regulations

• Incompatibility with zoning and land-use plans

• Alteration of a designated floodway

This list is meant not to be inclusive, but to give an example of the types of potentially severe environmental impacts that can be reason- ably predicted with relatively minimal effort and within a short time. Results of the initial screening will be a preliminary list of possible alternatives for use in the scoping process. After scoping has been completed, the received input on environmental effects or alternatives should be used to further refine the alternatives to be considered in the environmental studies and discussed in the environmental docu- ment. The alternatives will continue to be screened and refined during the conduct of environmental analysis to avoid or minimize potential impacts. Sometimes such changes may be minor adjustments to de- sign details, changes in particular elements of a proposed plan, or minor relocations. Continual interaction and communication among all study team members ensure that the final alternatives in the envi- ronmental document have incorporated al1 possible measures to re- duce environmental effects.

4.4 The No-Action Alternative

In all studies, there is always the option of doing nothing. This option is referred to as the no-action, or no-build, alternative. It normally consists of maintenance of existing or proposed future conditions as presently planned, with no extensive capital expenditures. Although the no-action alternative, by definition, will not respond to stated needs or meet established goals and objectives, it cannot be dropped from the list ofalternatives considered in environmental stud- ies or from the environmental document. The no-action alternative be- comes the standard and basis by which future conditions of proposed action, or build, alternatives are compared. Because the results of the entire environmental analysis will be based on a comparison of the build alternatives with the no-build alternative, the outcome and de- cision-making process rely critically on the way in which the no-build alternative has been defined. More than just a basis for comparison, however, the no-action alter- native should always be considered a viable option for ultimate selection after environmental studies are completed. Such selection of the no-action alternative would be appropriate if results indicated a clear and significant imbalance in proposed project or action benefits com- pared with the adverse effects or costs. The no-build alternative is not merely a definition of existing condi- tions. Because impacts are evaluated on the basis of future condi- tions, the no-build alternative must be defined in detail related to future characteristics without the proposed project or action. Planned and programmed projects not affected by the proposed project or ac- tion being evaluated should be included. Agencies will vary on the specific criteria for inclusion of other proposed projects or actions within the definition of the no-action alternative. Some agencies will include any proposed or planned project or activity. Other agencies will require that funding and other concrete evidence of implementa- tion be in place. Still other agencies may require that only projects presently under construction be included.

Reasons for the diversity in the definition of the no-build alterna- tive are often based on past experience or particular characteristics of agency-sponsored actions or projects. Sometimes including too much conjecture can lead to disastrous results, and sometimes not having sufficient foresight can do the same. For example, a commuter rail project proceeds based on ridership projections which are based, in turn, on projected housing and economic development. The employ- ment and housing development never occur, and the expenditure of public funds for the transit project is seriously incommensurate with the number of actual riders on the completed system. On the other hand, a new two-lane roadway is designed based on existing undevel- oped conditions in the service area. By the time the new road is open to traffic, it is already jammed with congested traffic due to construc- tion of shopping centers, major employers, or other traffic generators in the corridor. Changes for rehabilitating the two-lane road into a four-lane road will cost twice as much as if the original design had in- cluded the development in the no-build alternative definition. One additional similar example is an environmental analysis that compares projected air quality total pollutant levels of the proposed project with the existing conditions and concludes a negative effect. It is decided not to proceed with the transportation improvement. In 20 years, traffic under the no-build scenario will have increased threefold, and the existing transportation network will not have the capacity to handle it. Congestion will be severe, and resultant air pollutant concentrations will be twice as high as they would have been if the transportation project had proceeded. If the environmen- tal impact analysis had correctly defined future traffic conditions of the no-build alternative, the comparison of alternatives would have indicated that the build alternative would actually result in an im- provement in air quality over future no-build conditions, the no-build alternative. The analyst should be cognizant that the no-action alternative may, in its own right, produce adverse environmental effects. Sometimes the fact is overlooked that doing nothing can cause adverse effects. In the above example the no-build alternative would produce adverse air quality impacts. Another example may be a proposed urban develop- ment project without which a particular area is projected to continu- ally decline, with an increase in urban blight and crime. The environmental impact assessment should always compare fu- ture conditions with the proposed project or action to future condi- tions without the proposed project or action. The "without project or action" conditions are the no-action alternative. It is extremely impor- tant, therefore, that the no-build alternative be defined in detail and that concurrence is received from appropriate federal, state, and local agencies prior to the beginning of environmental study activities.

4.5 Contents of Draft Environmental Impact Statement

The alternatives section of an Environmental Assessment or Draft Environmental Impact Statement should begin with a description of the alternatives selection process. Although not requiring detailed complexity, this discussion should clearly establish the systematic and logical process by which the reasonable alternatives considered in the environmental analysis were derived. The environmental document should briefly list those alternatives already dropped from consideration and the reasons for their elimina- tion. The document should then describe all proposed reasonable alter- natives, including the no-action alternative, in equal detail. Physical and operational characteristics should be included to a level of detail sufficient for the reader to fully understand exactly what is being pro- posed and the differences among the various proposed alternatives.

4.6 Reassessment and Selection of Preferred Alternative

Following the public and agency review period and the public hear- ing, all comments should be assembled and summarized. The consid- ered alternatives should then be reevaluated based on comments received. In some cases, minor adjustments in design or location may respond to stated concerns. Sometimes parts of two or more alternatives may be combined to produce a more acceptable solution. At other times a downsizing of the proposal may be necessary. Comments received during the review period of the draft environ- mental document also may necessitate additional design or environ- mental analysis to respond to specific issues raised during the review. Based upon all considerations, a preferred alternative is then se- lected. The evaluation and selection process is discussed in Chap. 22. Some agencies require that a separate Preferred Alternative Report be prepared at this point. Otherwise, the reasoning behind the selec- tion process is described in the alternatives section of the final envi- ronmental document. If the selected preferred alternative differs greatly from any of those presented in the circulated draft environmental document, and would cause adverse effects not stated in the draft environmental document, a supplemental draft document must be prepared, must be recirculat- ed, and must go through the public and agency review process.

4.7 Contents of Final Environmental Impact Statement

The alternatives section of the Finding of No Significant Impact or Final Environmental Impact Statement focuses on the selected pre- ferred alternative. The selection process should be described in detail, and the reason(s) for selection of the preferred alternative should be clearly stated. Alternatives presented in the draft environmental docu- ment but not selected should be summarized, and the reasons for their dismissal from consideration should be clearly stated. The Final Environmental Impact Statement is then circulated to all agencies and individuals commenting on the draft document. Public notice of avail- ability of the final environmental document is given, and a review peri- od (usually 30 days) is established for receipt of any comments. Some state requirements specifically call for formal documents to be prepared at this stage of environmental studies. For example, the California Environmental Quality Act requires certification of the Final Environmental Impact Report, Findings for each identified significant environmental effect, and Statements of Overriding Considerations. The law prohibits approval of a project unless the agency (1) has elimi- nated or substantially reduced all significant effects or (2) has deter- mined that any remaining significant effects on the environment found to be unavoidable are acceptable due to overriding concerns. The Statement of Overriding Concerns must be prepared to show that each unavoidable significant environmental effect is "acceptable" based on documentation that the benefits of a proposed project outweigh the un- avoidable adverse environmental effects.

4.8 Record of Decision

After the review period for the Final Environmental Impact Statement, the Record of Decision is prepared. The Record of Decision is a concise public record that includes (1) what the decision is; (2) identification of all considered alternatives, specifying the alternative which was envi- ronmentally preferable; (3) a discussion of preferences among alterna- tives and the basis for each preference; and (4) a statement on whether all practicable means to avoid or minimize environmental harm from the selected alternative have been adopted. A monitoring and enforce- ment program must be adopted and summarized where applicable for any mitigation. The Record of Decision basically ends the environmental impact as- sessment, or NEPA, process for a particular proposed project or ac- tion. Some environmental activities often take place at later stages, however, as final design activities proceed, particularly mitigation measures. The mitigation monitoring program becomes established within the Draft and Final Environmental Impact Statement process and follows the proposed project or action through subsequent phases until completion.

Environmental Impact Assessment. [VitalSource Bookshelf Online]. Retrieved from https://online.vitalsource.com/#/books/9781121379886/

Articles

1. (1982, September 13). The national environmental policy act of 1969, as amended . Retrieved from http://energy.gov/sites/prod/files/nepapub/nepa_documents/RedDont/Req-NEPA.pdf

· This reading provides detailed guidance on the scoping process of the Environmental Assessment and Environmental Impact Statements.

2. Alm, A. (1988). NEPA: Past, present, and future . EPA Journal. Retrieved from http://www2.epa.gov/aboutepa/nepa-past-present-and-future

Recommended Resources Memorandum

1. Executive office of the president, council on environmental quality. (1981, April 30). Memorandum for general counsels, NEPA liaisons and participants in scoping . Retrieved from http://energy.gov/sites/prod/files/nepapub/nepa_documents/RedDont/G-CEQ-scopingguidance.pdf

· This memorandum provides detailed guidance on the scoping process of the Environmental Assessment and Environmental Impact Statements.

Form

1. Association of environmental professionals. (2009). CEQA appendix g: Environmental checklist form . In The California Environmental Quality Act. Retrieved from http://www.waterboards.ca.gov/water_issues/programs/nps/docs/solicitation_notice/2012_ceqa_apdx_g.pdf

· This resource is a template for scoping in the state of California.

.