167 7 Preparing Environmental Assessments In the early 1970s, federal agencies had no option but to prepare an environmental impact statement (EIS) as many actions could not be immediately excluded as being clearly nonsignicant. Conse- quently, EISs were frequently prepared only to reach the conclusion that no signicant impacts existed. In 1978, the Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) responded to this problem by creat- ing an environmental assessment (EA), the third level of National Environmental Protection Act (NEPA) compliance designed to provide an efcient mechanism for bridging the gap between the categorical exclusion (CATX) and EIS. When the CEQ created the EA, it believed that the EIS would still be the principal instrument used for evaluating impacts. Instead, EAs have become the principal instrument used for evaluating impacts. This observation is supported by the fact that, on an average, approximately 100 EAs are prepared for each EIS. Moreover, the CEQ estimates that 30,000–50,000 EAs are prepared each year compared with just 300 to 500 EISs. 1 This chapter describes the EA process and its documentation requirements. For a more in- depth discussion of the EA process, the reader is directed to the author’s companion book, Effective Environmental Assessments. 2 7.1 OV E RVIEW When challenged, an EIS is often easier to defend than an EA because an EA must prove that none of the potential environmental impacts is signicant or, if one is, that it can be adequately mitigated. In contrast, there is no such requirement for an EIS. Additionally, because of its smaller size, a judge is more likely to take personal interest in an EA and actually read through it. Thus, an EA may receive more rigorous judicial review than an EIS. Project advisories have taken note of this fact and have revised their strategies accordingly. As a result, in recent years agencies have witnessed a movement away from challenging EISs as many opponents have refocused their efforts instead on EAs, considering them to be more vulnerable targets. Most agencies have not remained docile in the face of greater opposition. Evidence suggests that the quality of EAs has generally improved and, consequently, agencies have been become more successful in defending their ndings of no signicant impact (FONSI). 7.1.1 THE PURPOSE OF AN EA As illustrated in Figure 1.1, the preparation of an EA is necessary for federal actions that cannot be excluded under a CATX and for which the agency has not prepared an EIS. An EA can serve any one of the following three objectives (§ 1508.9): 1. Briey provide sufcient evidence and analysis for determining whether to prepare an EIS or a FONSI 2. Aid an agency’s compliance with NEPA when no EIS is necessary 3. Facilitate preparation of an EIS when one is deemed necessary The most important function of an EA is, used as a screening device, to evaluate actions to determine if they may result in a signicant impact, requiring the preparation of an EIS. To justify CRC_7559_CH007.indd 167CRC_7559_CH007.indd 167 1/31/2008 4:37:50 PM1/31/2008 4:37:50 PM © 2008 by Taylor & Francis Group, LLC 168 NEPA and Environmental Planning: Tools, Techniques, and Approaches for Practitioners issuing a FONSI, an EA must provide clear and convincing evidence that the proposal would not result in any signicant impacts or that any identied signicant impacts can be mitigated to the point of nonsignicance. 7.1.2 COMPARISON OF EAS TO EISS Table 7.1 compares some of the basic traits and differences between EAs and EISs. Three principal reasons why EISs are longer and more complex: EIS has more extensive documentation requirements. It also requires more extensive pro- cedures in preparation and issuance. EIS public participation (scoping and reviewing the draft EIS) usually raises issues and concerns that require more analysis and explanation. EIS must thoroughly describe and analyze the signicant impacts (which by denition are not at issue in an EA qualifying for a FONSI) and show how decisions about the action are related to an understanding of these impacts. EIS must rigorously explore a range of reasonable alternatives, while an EA typically pro- vides a more cursory review of these alternatives. • • • • TABLE 7.1 Comparison of an EA with an EIS Environmental Assessment Environmental Impact Statement The principal purpose is to determine if the proposed action would result in a signicant impact requiring preparation of an EIS. The question of signicance is no longer at stake. The EIS is prepared to support decision-making by identifying and evaluating alternative methods for meeting the purpose and need and mitigating the impacts. The proposed action can only be pursued if its impacts are insignicant or can be mitigated. An agency may pursue any analyzed alternative regardless of the resulting impacts. A substantial change in the project would normally require preparation of a new NEPA document. An EIS reviews a range of reasonable alternatives. A substantial change is therefore less likely to result in a delay since it may already be covered in one of the alternatives. A different alternative may simply be chosen by supplementing the record of decision (ROD). No restrictions exist regarding who may prepare an EA (federal agency or a contractor). A party may not prepare an EIS if it has a nancial or other interest in the outcome (conict of interest). EAs are normally substantially faster and cheaper to prepare. EIS are typically more complex, lengthy, and expensive. The analysis normally focuses on the proposed action. Other alternatives are usually given only cursory review. Substantial treatment must be devoted to each of the reasonable alternatives investigated. While an EA is a public document, a formal public scoping process is not normally required under the regulations. An EA is not normally required to be publicly circulated for formal review and comment, as is the case for an EIS (however, many agencies now do this). EISs require a much larger degree of public involvement. A formal public scoping process is required. EISs must be publicly circulated for review and comment. EAs are not typically supplemented. A substantial change normally requires preparation of a new EA. EISs may be supplemented if there is a signicant change in the action, information, or circumstances. EAs are often more susceptible to a successful legal challenge. If challenged, an EIS is frequently easier to defend. No requirement exists to consider mitigation measures. Mitigation measures must be analyzed. CRC_7559_CH007.indd 168CRC_7559_CH007.indd 168 1/31/2008 4:37:51 PM1/31/2008 4:37:51 PM © 2008 by Taylor & Francis Group, LLC Preparing Environmental Assessments 169 7.1.3 TIME PERIODS Preparation of EAs must be so timed that they can be circulated at the same time as other plan- ning documents (§ 1501.2[b]). The CEQ has advised agencies that an EA process should normally require a maximum of 3 months to complete and generally need substantially lesser time. 3 In practice, however, many agencies report that the total process normally exceeds this time frame. The following section provides a thorough review of the process requirements governing the prepa- ration, review, and approval of an EA and a FONSI. 7.2 PREPARING AND ISSUING THE ASSESSMENT Figure 7.1 depicts a generalized procedure for preparing an EA. If the agency is uncertain whether an action would result in a signicant impact, it may choose rst to prepare an EA to determine if the action qualies for a FONSI. This is the course normally taken, since preparing an EIS requires substantially more effort. In cases involving an applicant (i.e., a nonfederal entity applying for a federal permit, license, or approval), preparation of the EA must begin early in the process and “no later than immediately after the application is received” by the agency (§ 1502.5[b]). An EIS must be prepared either by the agency or by a contractor who has signed a disclo- sure statement indicating that it has “no nancial or other interest in the outcome of the project” (§ 1506.5[b]). No such requirement exists for contractors assigned the responsibility of preparing an EA (§ 1506.5[b]). The agency, however, is responsible for evaluating the environmental issues involved in the project and also assumes legal responsibility for their scope and content. 7.2.1 PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT After a decision is made to prepare an EA, the most appropriate level of public involvement must be determined. The stage is now set for initiating internal (and if applicable, public) scoping (see rst box, Figure 7.1). Consultations with outside authorities and agencies are also initiated, as warranted. This step is important, as revealed by a case in which an agency reported that the NEPA process was particu- larly useful in helping the state and the Indian tribe concerned to resolve their differences about a proposed action. 4 While the CEQ NEPA Regulations (Regulations) do not specically require an agency either to incorporate or respond to public comments in an EA, such practice is highly recommended. Where appropriate, either public hearings or meetings should be conducted. Criteria for determining if these are warranted include (§ 1506.6[c]): Circumstances where there is substantial interest in holding a hearing or where an environ- mental controversy is involved A request for a hearing is made by another agency with jurisdiction over the action, sup- ported by reasons why a hearing would be helpful The CEQ has stated that EAs are to be made available to the public and that agencies are to give public notice of their availability (§ 1506.6[b]). The goal should be to notify all interested or affected parties. 5 Repeated failure to notify interested parties or the affected public could be interpreted as a violation of the Regulations. A combination of methods may be used to notify the public. For instance, appropriate notication for proposals of national interest might involve publishing a notice of availability in the Federal Register and national publications as well as mailing the notice to interested national groups. • • CRC_7559_CH007.indd 169CRC_7559_CH007.indd 169 1/31/2008 4:37:51 PM1/31/2008 4:37:51 PM © 2008 by Taylor & Francis Group, LLC 7.2.1.1 Public Notification 170 NEPA and Environmental Planning: Tools, Techniques, and Approaches for Practitioners Identify a need for taking action. Determine that an environmental assessment (EA) will be prepared. Determine appropriate level of public involvement. Initiate scoping. Initiate any applicable consultation. Define reasonable alternatives. Integrate any other agency planning processes with the EA. Proceed with the action. Implement any applicable mitigation and/or monitoring. Issue finding of no significant impact (FONSI). Prepare environmental impact statement (EIS). Significant impacts? Mitigate impacts? Investigate proposed action and alternatives. Analyze impacts. Finalize draft EA. Perform internal review and incorporate comments. Make EA publicly available. Decision-maker reviews EA to determine if any impacts are significant. No Yes Yes No FIGURE 7.1 Typical environmental assessment process. CRC_7559_CH007.indd 170CRC_7559_CH007.indd 170 1/31/2008 4:37:51 PM1/31/2008 4:37:51 PM © 2008 by Taylor & Francis Group, LLC Preparing Environmental Assessments 171 In other cases, appropriate notication for a site-specic proposal, such as publishing notices in local newspapers, may be sufcient. 7.2.1.2 The Public Review Process While EAs must be made publicly available, the Regulations require no public comment, review, and incorporation period. Thus, agencies neither are specically required by the Regulations to respond to public comments nor are EAs and FONSIs required to be led with the U.S. Environ- mental Protection Agency (EPA). From an agency’s standpoint, thoroughly involving the public in the review of an EA can be distinctly advantageous. For example, in some situations, courts have ruled that an agency cannot be forced to prepare an EIS if the plaintiff has had ample opportunity to dispute the EA and FONSI process but failed to do so. 7.2.1.3 Consultation As appropriate, agencies are required to consult with other agencies in preparing their NEPA docu- ments. Such consultation facilitates a more thorough analysis (§ 1501.1, § 1501.2[d], § 1502.25). While the direction provided in § 1502.25 is directed at the preparation of EISs, it is also interpreted to be equally applicable to EAs. This is evidenced by the fact that an EA is required to list “… agencies and persons consulted” (§ 1508.9[b]). Chapter 2 of the companion text Environmental Impact Statements provides additional infor- mation that may be of use in promoting public involvement. 6 The EA process is integrated with other planning studies or analyses (see second box, Figure 7.1). 7.2.1.4 Case Law A U.S. Court of Appeals concluded that the Army Corps had complied with the NEPA regulatory direction to involve the public in preparing an EA. The court held that the agency met the “to the extent practicable” requirement by issuing public notice of the proponent’s application, conducting two public hearings, responding to public comments in the EA, and conferring with environmental agencies. The court did not agree with plaintiffs that the agency should have prepared a draft EA for public comment. This case is in contrast to a second case described below in which the agency had a much more limited public involvement process. In the second case, a district court held that the Forest Service violated NEPA by failing to provide for effective public involvement in the preparation of the EAs for four logging projects. In its defense, the Forest Service argued that issuing a scoping notice and releasing the nal EA to the public satised the mandatory public involvement requirements. The court noted that while the Regulations do not require the circulation of a draft EA, they require that the public be informed to the extent practicable. The scoping notices contained no analysis of the environmental impacts of the projects. Moreover, they failed to give the public adequate information to effectively participate in the decision-making process. 7 7.2.2 PERFORMING THE ANALYSIS The Regulations are surprisingly silent when they come to providing direction for performing an EA analysis. Nonetheless, to ensure that it is adequate in substance and content, the EA must provide an accurate, unbiased, and scientically based study for determining the signicance or nonsignicance of potential impacts. To the extent feasible, an effort should be made to quantify and explain the probable intensity of potential impacts. The results of the investigation should be clearly documented, and the analysis should be based on professionally accepted technical and scientic methodologies. CRC_7559_CH007.indd 171CRC_7559_CH007.indd 171 1/31/2008 4:37:51 PM1/31/2008 4:37:51 PM © 2008 by Taylor & Francis Group, LLC 172 NEPA and Environmental Planning: Tools, Techniques, and Approaches for Practitioners Although the Regulations do not specically state that an EA must consider the impacts of con- nected, similar, or cumulative actions, it is obvious that it cannot adequately make a determination of signicance without considering them (§ 1508.27[b][7]). As illustrated by the following case, an analysis should always consider and evaluate such impacts as appropriate. In one case, a plaintiff challenged the adequacy of an EA prepared for the importation of spent nuclear fuel rods from Taiwan to the United States. The court found the EA to be inadequate, noting that the examination of alternatives was bound by the rule of reason and that the level of analysis should commensurate with the severity of the impacts. The court also found the agency’s choice of alternatives and its analysis of the cumulative risks of radiation exposure to be inadequate. 8 7.2.2.1 The Proposed Action While an EIS must devote substantial consideration to each of the analyzed alternatives, the focus of attention is predominantly on the proposed action. Typically, reasonable alternatives are only briey described before being dismissed. In these cases, the EA should clearly explain the reasons for the dismissal of each alternative. Such a practice is justied because the principal purpose of an EA is generally distinctly different from that of an EIS. While the principal purpose of an EIS is to explore reasonable alternatives to proposed actions that could avoid or reduce signicant impacts, EAs are normally prepared to determine if an action would result in signicant impacts. Thus, attention is normally focused on the proposed action with correspondingly lesser attention devoted to the alternatives. It is recommended that a sliding-scale approach be used in determining the num- ber of alternatives as well as the degree to which the reasonable alternatives should be analyzed. 7.2.2.2 The purpose of the EA is to provide decision-makers with facts about potential impacts. Many EAs have been successfully challenged because they either made or appeared to make a determination that the impacts of a proposed action were nonsignicant. 9 For this reason, precautions should be taken to avoid any perception of such judgments made or giving the impression of partiality. Any actual judgment regarding the signicance of an impact is reserved for the FONSI. Consistent with this direction, nonjudgmental terms such as consequential, inconsequential, substantial, large, and small are generally considered acceptable. Conversely, judgmental terms such as signicant, nonsignicant, acceptable, and tolerable should be avoided. 7.2.3 ADDRESSING CUMULATIVE IMPACTS IN EAS While the Regulations require EISs address cumulative impacts, they are silent on this requirement for EAs. For this reason, claims have been made that analyses of cumulative impacts do not need to be addressed in an EA. However, as discussed above, it is reasonably clear that a cumulative impact assessment (CIA) must be performed before an agency can conclusively determine that the impacts of an action are nonsignicant (§ 1508.27[b][7]). In one case, a court found that while some individual projects had independent utility and thus need not be considered together in the same NEPA document, the EAs prepared for each project did not adequately consider their cumulative impacts as reasonably foreseeable actions. 10 7.2.3.1 Cumulative Impact Study A study has been carried out to determine the adequacy of cumulative impact analysis in EAs. 11 This study reviewed 89 EAs prepared by 13 federal agencies that were announced in the Federal Register during the rst half of 1992. Based on certain criteria, each EA was examined to determine if it adequately addressed cumulative impacts. CRC_7559_CH007.indd 172CRC_7559_CH007.indd 172 1/31/2008 4:37:51 PM1/31/2008 4:37:51 PM © 2008 by Taylor & Francis Group, LLC Reserving Significance Findings for the FONSI Preparing Environmental Assessments 173 To begin with, of the 89 EAs examined, only 35 mentioned the term “cumulative impacts.” Of these 35, 13 concluded that the cumulative impacts were insignicant without presenting any analysis or evidence on which to base such a decision. Of the remainder, 19 failed to discuss cumulative impacts for all the resources that would be affected. Of the three remaining EAs, only two correctly identied all the past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions in their analyses. Table 7.2 summarizes the results of this study. 7.2.4 THE CILIX METHOD Preparing a CIA that fully and rigorously satises the regulatory requirements set forth in 40 Code of Federation Revolution (CFR) § 1508.7 (see Chapter 9) can be a daunting if not an impractical task, particularly when preparing an EA. As just witnessed, a close examination of CIAs in EAs reveals that such analyses are frequently inadequate or insufcient to demonstrate that a rigorous examination has been undertaken to prove that the cumulative impacts are nonsignicant pursuant to regulatory requirements set forth in 40 CFR § 1508.7. NEPA is governed by the rule of reason, that is, reason should be applied when a regulatory requirement results in an impractical, irrational, or absurd result. Under some specic circum- stances (described below), the author offers a streamlined approach referred to as the Cilix method which provides a reasonable and practical method for demonstrating that a cumulative impact is clearly nonsignicant. 12 This technique can be used to demonstrate nonsignicance even in situa- tions where the cumulative baseline has already sustained a signicant impact. 7.2.4.1 Standard Approach Assessing cumulative impacts under the standard approach may require identifying and assessing a potentially large array of past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions. On a resource- by-resource basis, analysts then need to evaluate and ‘add’ these impacts together to produce a cumulative impact baseline. In turn, the impact of the proposed action is also be ‘added’ to this baseline. If the baseline has already breached the threshold of signicance, then from a strict, absolute standpoint, any contribution beyond that point can be interpreted as signicant and an EIS would need to be prepared. 7.2.4.2 Cilix Methodology The concept behind the Cilix methodology is straightforward: If a proposal is deemed eligible for a FONSI (i.e., the impacts are nonsignicant), the CIA need only demonstrate that the cumulative incremental impact is clearly so small as to be negligible or unimport- ant and therefore ‘nonsignicant’ in terms of its contribution to the cumulative impact baseline. TABLE 7.2 Reasons for Inadequate Cumulative Impact Analysis in EAs Reasons for Inadequate Cumulative Impact Analysis Percentage (%) Did not even mention cumulative impacts 61 Concluded that cumulative impacts were insignicant without presenting any analysis of evidence 14 Failed to address cumulative impacts on all resources 21 Failed to adequately address all past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions 1 Adequately addressed cumulative impacts 3 CRC_7559_CH007.indd 173CRC_7559_CH007.indd 173 1/31/2008 4:37:52 PM1/31/2008 4:37:52 PM © 2008 by Taylor & Francis Group, LLC 174 NEPA and Environmental Planning: Tools, Techniques, and Approaches for Practitioners Thus, the method is applicable to proposals for which the environmental contribution, when ‘added’ to the impacts of other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable actions, is so small as to constitute no appreciable increase in the cumulative effect. Because the contribution is negligible, it would not affect, inuence, or contribute to any signicant change or increase in the cumulative impact on an environmental resource. With respect to cumulative impacts, in such instances, neither there is a rational justication to forego the proposed action nor a rational justication for preparing an EIS. A FONSI or a CATX can thus provide an appropriate mechanism for NEPA review. The signicance factors (40 CFR § 1508.27) should be used in assessing and demonstrating that the incremental impact is trivial, but instead of considering the signicance factors from an absolute value (total impact), they can be assessed in terms of the relative change in the impact. In essence, the Cilix method can be summarized as follows. Rather than preparing what may be highly detailed and complex assessment of a cumulative impact, the Cilix method simply dem- onstrates that, regardless of what the cumulative baseline is, the incremental impact is too small to have an appreciable effect upon it. Therefore, the cumulative impact is nonsignicant (negative declaration statement), consistent with the purpose of a FONSI. The beauty of the Cilix method is that one does not necessarily have to undergo an exhaustive analysis of the environmental baseline. Such an analysis is unnecessary since the proposal will have a negligible effect on the baseline, regardless of its state. This is consistent with the purpose of an EA, since the intent of a FONSI is to demonstrate that there will be no signicant impact (i.e., nega- tive declaration statement). 7.2.4.3 Restrictions Application of the Cilix method is restricted to the following two circumstances: 1. Where an area has not been signicantly affected, and where the direct and indirect impacts of the proposed action are clearly so small as to have no appreciable incremental effect 2. Where an area has already sustained a signicant environmental impact but the direct and indirect impacts of the proposed action are clearly so small as to have no appreciable incremental effect Application of the Cilix method is invalid where the direct and indirect impacts (i.e., the incremental contribution) may result in some appreciable incremental effect on the cumulative impact baseline. As described above, the Cilix method is restricted to cases where the incremental contribution of the proposed action is clearly trivial or unimportant. Moreover, it cannot be used in the rare circumstance where a trivial incremental impact of a proposal could provide the nal contribution necessary to breach the threshold of signicance. 7.2.4.4 Application Scenarios The following three hypothetical scenarios are presented to demonstrate the logic behind the Cilix method as well as circumstances under which its application is valid. These cases are provided for illustrative purposes only. Case 1: Assume a situation in which a particular water resource has a water quality environ- mental baseline (provided by considering past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions) with a ctitious value of 70 units. Further, assume that a federal project adds 40 units to the baseline, resulting in a total impact of 110 units. The legal (signicance) limit is 100 units. The cumulative impact of the proposal would therefore breach the threshold of signicance. In this case, application CRC_7559_CH007.indd 174CRC_7559_CH007.indd 174 1/31/2008 4:37:52 PM1/31/2008 4:37:52 PM © 2008 by Taylor & Francis Group, LLC Preparing Environmental Assessments 175 of the Cilix method would be invalid as the incremental impact is clearly signicant, requiring the preparation of an EIS. Case 2: Assume the same problem, but this time, using a different set of numbers to depict signicance conditions. Again, the threshold of signicance (maximum legal limit) is assigned a value of 100 units. But in this case, the cumulative impact baseline has already sustained a signicant impact of 110 units. The proposed action would add 0.00002 units, resulting in an impact of 110.00002. Thus, this proposal would add to the signicant impact but only innitesimally so. A strict interpretation of the CIA leads to the conclusion that once the signicance threshold has been breached, any additional impact should likewise be considered signicant—clearly an imprac- tical result in this case. Recall that NEPA is governed by the rule of reason. The Cilix method provides a practical solution to this second scenario because it considers such an increase not from an absolute value but instead from its relative contribution, that is, the increase is so small (0.00001%) as to have no appreciable effect on water quality. In this case, the Cilix method can be used to demonstrate that the degradation is clearly so small as to be deemed nonsignicant. Case 3: Finally, assume the same problem, but this time, using a different set of signicance conditions. As with the previous cases, the threshold of signicance (maximum legal limit) is 100 units. Again, the environment baseline has already sustained a signicant impact accruing to 110 units but in this case the proposed action would add a further 20 units, resulting in a total impact of 130, a relatively large (18%) contribution to the environment baseline. Since the Cilix method is valid only for circumstances in which the environmental contribution is clearly nonsignicant, such a large increase in a value that has already been signicantly affected would provide a basis for a rational decision-maker to conclude that the additional units represent a signicant increase requir- ing preparation of an EIS. 7.2.4.5 Advantages Under the Cilix method, it is not necessary to prepare what might be a highly complicated and expensive analysis of cumulative impacts so long as the incremental impact is so trivial as to be unimportant. What is needed here is the ability to demonstrate that the incremental increase is clearly an unimportant contribution in terms of the cumulative baseline. The Cilix method is there- fore invalid in any circumstance where this cannot be done. Beyond providing a more practical approach to the assessment of cumulative impacts in EAs, the Cilix method has a second important advantage: Even if the cumulative impact baseline of the applicable resource is signicantly affected (or could be in the future), a FONSI can still be issued with respect to the CIA as long as the incremental contribution from the proposed action relative to the baseline is so small as to constitute no appreciable environmental change to the resource. This is because, from an environmental quality standpoint, it would make no practical difference whether the proposal is implemented or not, since there would be no substantial cumulative change in the affected environmental resources. 7.2.4.6 Example The following abbreviated example is provided for illustrative purposes only. This example dem- onstrates how the Cilix method can be applied to evaluate the cumulative impacts involved in the proposed construction of a federal building in the crowded downtown business center of a large city. The area has already sustained a signicant cumulative impact. For instance, virtually all of it has been lled with buildings and paved over with concrete. The streets that run in every direction are crowded with commuter trafc, and there is a high level of associated trafc noise. Because of all the other high-rise construction, the proposed building is practically unviewable from more than a block away. CRC_7559_CH007.indd 175CRC_7559_CH007.indd 175 1/31/2008 4:37:52 PM1/31/2008 4:37:52 PM © 2008 by Taylor & Francis Group, LLC 176 NEPA and Environmental Planning: Tools, Techniques, and Approaches for Practitioners The cumulative impact descriptions presented below assume that a rigorous analysis of the direct and indirect impacts of the proposed building have already been performed in the EA. In addition to the CEQ’s 10 intensity factors for assessing signicance, the setting (context) may also need to be considered since the impacts of a building located in a crowded downtown area can be quite different from those of exactly the same structure sited inside a nature preserve. 13 The example described below considers two different alternatives: (1) no-action alternative and (2) proposed action. It also considers an abbreviated Cilix analysis of cumulative effects on the following environmental resources: (1) visual quality, (2) noise, and (3) trafc congestion. Cumulative Visual Resource Impacts. The following example demonstrates how the Cilix method can be used to assess cumulative impacts on visual resources within an EA: Alternative 1 (No-Action): As the no-action alternative would not directly result in any measurable change in visual resources, this alternative would not contribute to any cumu- lative effect on them. Alternative 2 (Building): Existing buildings currently surround the proposed site, and future buildings are proposed for the surrounding area. Because of the limited amount of area that would be affected, the proposed construction is considered to be small-to-negligible and would therefore contribute little or no incremental increase in visual impairment when combined with other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable projects. Consequently, there would be no substantial change in cumulative visual resources within the surround- ing area. Cumulative Noise Impacts. The following example demonstrates how the Cilix method can be used in an EA to assess cumulative impacts on noise: Alternative 1 (No-Action): As the no-action alternative would not directly result in any measurable incremental impact, this alternative would not contribute to any cumulative effect on noise levels. Alternative 2 (Building): The construction and operational noise level resulting from exist- ing activities is deemed to be high. Construction and operational noise levels associated with reasonably foreseeable projects will add to those already existing. However, the incremental increase in noise level construction will be both temporary and negligible when compared with the total ambient noise level. The long-term incremental increase in operational noise level will be negligible when compared to the total ambient noise level. Because the proposed project would contribute little or no incremental increase in noise when combined with other present and reasonably foreseeable projects, there would be no substantial change in cumulative noise levels within the surrounding area. Cumulative Trafc Congestion Impacts. The following example demonstrates how the Cilix method can be used in an EA to assess cumulative impacts on trafc congestion: Alternative 1 (No-Action): As the no-action alternative would not directly result in any mea- surable change in trafc congestion, this alternative would not contribute to any cumula- tive effect on trafc levels. Alternative 2 (Building): The trafc congestion resulting from existing construction and operational activities is deemed to be substantial. Trafc congestion impacts from reason- ably foreseeable activities will add to the existing congestion. However, the incremental increase in trafc congestion would be negligible when compared with the total current and future congestion levels. Because the proposed project would contribute little or no incremental increase in trafc when combined with other present and reasonably foresee- able construction projects, there would be no substantial cumulative change in congestion levels. CRC_7559_CH007.indd 176CRC_7559_CH007.indd 176 1/31/2008 4:37:52 PM1/31/2008 4:37:52 PM © 2008 by Taylor & Francis Group, LLC [...]... Group, LLC CRC _75 59_CH0 07. indd 177 1/31/2008 4:3 7: 5 2 PM 178 NEPA and Environmental Planning: Tools, Techniques, and Approaches for Practitioners TABLE 7. 3 Documentation Requirements for an EA Need for the proposal Alternatives (as required by Section 102[2][E] of NEPA) Environmental impacts of the proposed action and alternatives List of agencies and persons consulted 7. 4.1 PAGE LIMITATIONS While the... CRC _75 59_CH0 07. indd 179 1/31/2008 4:3 7: 5 3 PM 180 NEPA and Environmental Planning: Tools, Techniques, and Approaches for Practitioners TABLE 7. 5 Suggested Outline for the Section on Alternatives 2.0 Description of proposed action and alternatives 2.1 Brief introduction: 2.1.1 Briefly describe process used to identify alternatives 2.1.2 Briefly describe alternatives considered but not analyzed 2.2 No-action... other environmental documents related to the scope of the proposed action © 2008 by Taylor & Francis Group, LLC CRC _75 59_CH0 07. indd 181 1/31/2008 4:3 7: 5 3 PM 182 NEPA and Environmental Planning: Tools, Techniques, and Approaches for Practitioners TABLE 7. 7 Checklist for Preparing a FONSI Specific Considerations 1 The FONSI clearly demonstrates that the responsible decision-maker thoroughly understands... LLC CRC _75 59_CH0 07. indd 185 1/31/2008 4:3 7: 5 3 PM 186 NEPA and Environmental Planning: Tools, Techniques, and Approaches for Practitioners 7 Under what circumstances must a FONSI be made publicly available for a 30-day review period? 8 What are the regulatory documentation requirements for a FONSI? 9 Is it possible to mitigate potentially significant impacts such that a FONSI can be issued for a proposal?... CRC _75 59_CH0 07. indd 183 1/31/2008 4:3 7: 5 3 PM 184 NEPA and Environmental Planning: Tools, Techniques, and Approaches for Practitioners Mitigated EAs may also have disadvantages For example, an EIS normally provides a more thorough analysis of impacts and alternatives and may provide a more effective tool for combining the entire environmental process into a single, integrated planning exercise A mitigated... Francis Group, LLC CRC _75 59_CH0 07. indd 186 1/31/2008 4:3 7: 5 3 PM Preparing Environmental Assessments 1 87 22 CEQ, Public Memorandum: Talking Points on CEQ’s Oversight of Agency Compliance with the NEPA Regulations, 1980 23 Huber K D., NEPA: mitigation and the need for an environmental impact statement, Federal Facilities Journal, 1(2), Summer 1990; EDF v Marsh, 651 F.2d 983 (5th Cir 1981); and National Wildlife... Question No 36a 17 Council on Environmental Quality, Memorandum for Federal NEPA Contacts: Emergency Actions and NEPA, Attachment #2, Preparing Focused, Concise and Timely Environmental Assessments, September 8, 2005 18 Council on Environmental Quality, Guidance on Pollution Prevention and the National Environmental Policy Act, 58 FR 6 478 , January 29, 1993 19 CEQ, 40 Questions, Question No 37a 20 CEQ, 40... project needs (NEPA Section 102[2][E]) © 2008 by Taylor & Francis Group, LLC CRC _75 59_CH0 07. indd 178 1/31/2008 4:3 7: 5 2 PM Preparing Environmental Assessments 7. 4.2.3 179 Environmental Impacts of the Proposed Action and Alternatives According to the CEQ, this section should 17 • briefly describe impacts of the proposed action and each alternative The alternatives must meet the purpose and need The description... CRC _75 59_CH0 07. indd 184 1/31/2008 4:3 7: 5 3 PM Preparing Environmental Assessments 7. 7.1 185 REDUCING DUPLICATION AND DELAYS An agency’s review and approval cycle should be examined periodically for inefficiencies For example, to the extent practical, reviews involving more than one entity should be performed in parallel Agencies should also consider delegating approval to the lowest competent decision-making... 17, September 1, 1999 5 CEQ, 40 Questions, Question No 38 6 Eccleston C H., Environmental Impact Statements: A Comprehensive Guide to Project and Strategic Planning, John Wiley & Sons, New York, 2000 and Eccleston C H., The NEPA Planning Process: A Comprehensive Guide with Emphasis on Efficiency, John Wiley & Sons, New York, 1999 7 Sierra Nevada Forest Protection Campaign v Weingardt, Nos CIV-S-0 4-2 72 7, . CRC _75 59_CH0 07. indd 167CRC _75 59_CH0 07. indd 1 67 1/31/2008 4:3 7: 5 0 PM1/31/2008 4:3 7: 5 0 PM © 2008 by Taylor & Francis Group, LLC 168 NEPA and Environmental Planning: Tools, Techniques, and Approaches. EA? CRC _75 59_CH0 07. indd 185CRC _75 59_CH0 07. indd 185 1/31/2008 4:3 7: 5 3 PM1/31/2008 4:3 7: 5 3 PM © 2008 by Taylor & Francis Group, LLC 186 NEPA and Environmental Planning: Tools, Techniques, and Approaches. technical and scientic methodologies. CRC _75 59_CH0 07. indd 171 CRC _75 59_CH0 07. indd 171 1/31/2008 4:3 7: 5 1 PM1/31/2008 4:3 7: 5 1 PM © 2008 by Taylor & Francis Group, LLC 172 NEPA and Environmental Planning: