Helen Clough - Department of the Interior, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, retired, Judith Kurtzman - Utah State University Writing clear Environmental Assessments (EAs) as required by the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) is critical to successful implementation of the law and more importantly good decisions. The NEPA process must be well documented in clear language so that the proposals, alternatives and the environmental effects of proposals and alternatives are clearing explained. Often the NEPA analysis is not well documented resulting in costly delays in projects as appeals and litigation occur regarding the NEPA analysis. This training session is a continuation of the materials presented in Writing Environmental Assessments, Parts 1 and 2. Resource-specific analysis (for examples, effects on wildlife, effects on recreation, effects on water quality) and cumulative impact analysis (effects of past, present, and “reasonably foreseeable” future actions) will be explored. Mitigation and monitoring will be addressed. As with the other NEPA sessions examples relevant to river management will be explored and critiqued. Ample time is allotted for discussion and questions from participants.

1. NEPA - Writing
Environmental
Assessments, Part 3
River Management Society
Denver, Colorado
April 17, 2014
1

2. Chapter 4Chapter 4
Environmental ConsequencesEnvironmental Consequences
Alternative A
Air
Direct/indirect
Cumulative
Alternative B
Air
Direct/indirect
Cumulative
Air
Methods of analysis
Alternative A
Direct/indirect
Cumulative
Alternative B
Direct/indirect
Cumulative
Water
Methods of analysis
Alternative A
Methods of
analysis
2

3. Chapter 4
Environmental Consequences
• CEQ § 1502.16
• Introduction explaining this chapter describes impact levels to
each relevant resource
• Discuss the following types of impacts:
• Direct, indirect, and cumulative
• Short- and long-term
• Irreversible and irretrievable
• Explain the methods used to predict potential impacts and
measurement indicators used
3

4. Chapter 4 -Environmental
Consequences
• Describe impacts to resources/communities
• Timeframe used to determine impacts for each resource
• Discuss geographical boundaries used for each resource
• Describe the point to which the impacts are no longer
measurable
• “The choice of analysis scale must represent a reasoned decision
and cannot be arbitrary”
• Idaho Sporting Cong., Inc. v. Rittenhouse (9th Cir. 2002)
4

5. Chapter 4 -Environmental
Consequences
• Information must clearly support conclusions made.
• Show the cause-and-effect reasoning leading to conclusions
• If X occurs then we can expect Y to occur which results in Z
• A conclusionary statement unsupported by empirical or
experimental data, scientific authorities, or explanatory
information of any kind not only fails to crystallize issues, but
affords no basis for a comparison of the problems involved
with the proposed project and the difficulties involved in the
alternatives.
• (Silva v. Lynn, 482 F.2d 1282, 1285 (1st Cir. 1973) 5

6. Northern Plains Resource Council, Inc. v.
Surface Transportation Board, F.3d (9th
Cir.2011)
(Lowswartz, Linda. Summary of 2011 NEPA Cases)
• As a preliminary matter, the court stated that “[w]hile we
afford deference to the judgment and expertise of the agency,
the agency must, at a minimum, support its conclusions with
studies that the agency deems reliable. Lands Council, 537
F.3d at 994. The agency must ‘explain the conclusions it has
drawn from its chosen methodology, and the reasons it
considered the underlying evidence to be reliable.’ Id. The
agency will have acted arbitrarily and capriciously when ‘the
record plainly demonstrates that [the agency] made a clear
error in judgment in concluding that a project meets the
requirements’ of NEPA.”
6

7. Chapter 4 -Environmental
Consequences
• Predict change from existing condition (quantify)
• Specify activities that would cause change
• Specify location of the activity
• Specify the location of impact
• Specify timing of activity
• Specify timing of impact
7

8. Defining Significance
• CEQ § 1508.27 Significantly.
• Context …action must be analyzed in several context such a society
as a whole, the affected region, the affected interest, and the
locality.
• Intensity
• Beneficial and adverse impacts
• Affects to public health and safety
• Unique characteristics of the geographic area
• Controversy
• Uncertain or unknown risks
• Setting precedent
• Cumulatively significant impacts
• Affects to our cultural or historic resources
• Affects to endangered species
• Violates other federal or state laws 8

9. Determining Significance
• Determine if the action:
• Substantially changes to the resource or community
• Has a material bearing on the decision.
• Are impacts beneficial or adverse.
• Determine thresholds of significance:
• Federal policy or laws (CWA, CAA, ESA)
• Science (water temps and oxygen levels)
• Decision-maker’s opinion (education, politics, public pressure,
personal beliefs)
9

10. Chapter 4 Environmental
Consequences
• CEQ §1502.22 Incomplete and Unavailable Information
• If essential to a reasoned choice among alternatives and the
overall cost of obtaining it are not exorbitant, include the
information.
• If the information cannot be obtained because the cost of
obtaining it are exorbitant or the means to obtain it are not
known, the agency must include:
• A statement the information is incomplete or unavailable.
• A statement explaining the relevance of the information.
• A summary of the existing credible scientific information that is
available and relevant.
• The agency’s best estimation of the impacts without the
information.
10

11. Exercise 5
• Review EA ~ Chapter 4
• Environmental Consequences
• Did the agency clearly explain the impacts to each resource?
• What measurement indicators were used to quantify the
impacts?
• Did they define the terms used to describe the impacts (e.g.,
short-term and long-term)?
• What thresholds were used to determine significance?
• Did they define their methods for predicting impacts
11

12. Role of Mitigation
• CEQ § 1508.20
• Mitigation measures can be used to reduce impacts from
significant to less-than-significant.
• Mitigation must be evaluated as part of the alternative – not
simply listed
12

13. Role of Mitigation
• Statements that agencies often try to pass off as mitigation,
but usually are not:
• Consult with…
• Submit for review…
• Coordinate with…
• Study further…
• Inform…
• Encourage/discourage…
• Facilitate…
• Strive to…
(Bass, Heron and Bogdan, The NEPA Book, 2001 edition)
13

14. Role of Mitigation
• Statements that are questionable whether they are mitigation
measures:
• Provide funding for…
• Hire staff…
• Monitor or report…
• Comply with existing
regulations…
• Preserve already existing
natural sites…
(Bass, Heron and Bogdon, The NEPA Book, 2001 edition)
14

15. Role of Mitigation
• Consider the following when determining appropriate
mitigation measures:
• Economics
• Logistics
• Legality
• Social acceptance
environmental.fhwa.dot.gov
(Bass, Heron and Bogdon, The NEPA Book, 2001 edition)
15

16. Role of Mitigation
• Other agencies may impose mandatory mitigation measures
before a project can proceed:
• USFWS ~ Endangered species issues
• ACE ~ wetlands issues
• EPA ~ water or air quality issues
16

17. Role of Mitigation
• Although NEPA requires agencies to discuss mitigation
measures in their documents, it does not require them to
adopt the measures
• Unless…
• Reduces the impacts to less-than-significant in an EA/FONSI
• Agency commits to them in an ROD or FONSI
17

18. Role of Monitoring
• CEQ § 1505.3
• 3 categories of monitoring
• Implementation monitoring: ensures decisions are carried out as
described in the EIS/EA and ROD/FONSI
• Effectiveness monitoring: determines if mitigation is working as
predicted and meeting objectives
• Validation monitoring: reviews the analytical assumptions used
during the NEPA process ~ data intensive and involves research
18

19. Relationship Between DisclosureRelationship Between Disclosure
Documents and Decision DocumentsDocuments and Decision Documents
Disclosure Decision
Documents Documents
DEIS/FEIS ROD
EA FONSI
Significant
Threshold
Categorical Exclusion
(CATEX, CX, CE)
19

20. Mitigated FONSIMitigated FONSI
Impacts may be
significant
EIS
FONSI
Mitigation designed to
reduce impacts below
significance
20

21. Mitigated FONSIMitigated FONSI
In order to use a mitigated FONSI
Mitigation must be known to be effective
Mitigation must be binding on the agency
21

22. Finding of No Significant
Impact FONSI
• Identifies the chosen alternative
• State when the action will be implemented
• Succinctly state the reason for deciding the action will not
have significant impacts ~ show factors which weighed most
heavily in the determination (i.e., which issues or resources
were most likely to have a significant impact)
• Include the EA with the FONSI so information supporting
conclusions is readably available
• CEQ § 1508.13
• Forty Most Asked Questions (37a and 37b)
22

23. Finding of No Significant
Impact - FONSI
• Copy must be provided to whomever the agency knows or
believes is interested in the action.
• All mitigation and monitoring included in the FONSI are
enforceable commitments
• Before the FONSI is signed and the action implemented allow
sufficient time for review (usually 30 days)
23

24. Finding of No Significant Impact
FONSI08.27 (“10 points of significance”)
A FONSI presents EVIDENCE that
leads to individual conclusions about
significance factors and draws a
concluding finding encompassing all
factors.
24

25. Finding of No Significant
Impact - FONSI
• 30 days required for the following situations:
• Court Rulings
• The finding is borderline (reasonable argument for an EIS)
• Scientific or public controversy over the proposal
• CEQ §1501.4
• The nature of the action is without precedent
• Is an action that is or closely resembles an action that normally
requires preparation of an EIS
25

26. Exercise 6
• Review the FONSI
• Does it convince you of the no significant impact finding?
• Does it tie back to the issues or resources that had the
potential for significant impacts
• Are there any suggestions you have for improving it?
26

27. Analysis File
• Documents the information used to develop the EA/EIS and
decision by the agency
• Contains all supporting information for the EA/EIS
• Reviewed by the court and public when a document is
challenged
• Must be well organized
27

28. Analysis File
• Establish the file the first day of the NEPA process
• Organize documents chronologically
• Date and identify each item as it’s received and put in file
• Keep clean, original copies in the file
• Keep an index of what is in the file
• Discard non-relevant items or duplicates
• Should be frozen when FONSI or ROD is signed
• Keep file (at minimum) until action is completed (or the policy
of your base)
28

29. Summary
• Environmental consequences
• Direct
• Indirect
• Cumulative
• Mitigation
• Monitoring
• Finding of No Significant Effect
• Analysis File
29

30. Questions/comments
30