United States Region 4 EPA 904/6-85 133
Environmental Protection 345 Courtland Street, NE June 1985
Agency Atlanta, GA 30365
vvEPA Eighth Annual
Environmental Review
Conference
October 18-19, 1984
Presidential Hotel
Atlanta, Georgia
-------
DISCLAIMER
The Conference from which these proceedings emanated was
sponsored by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency in
the interest of information exchange. The contents of this
document reflect the views of the speakers and workshop
chairpersons and do not necessarily reflect the official
views or policy of the Environmental Protection Agency.
-------
EIGHTH ANNUAL ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW CONFERENCE
OCTOBER 18-19, 1984
PRESIDENTIAL HOTEL
4001 NORTHEAST EXPRESSWAY (1-85 at 1-285)
ATLANTA, GEORGIA
TABLE OF CONTENTS
PAGE
OPENING REMARKS
WELCOME
"SOME THOUGHTS ON IMPROVING
THE ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
PROCESS"
"EXPLORING THE PUBLIC
BENEFITS OF PRIVATE
PROPERTY"
"REVISIONS IN THE EPA
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
PROCESS"
"CONGRESSIONAL ACTIVITIES
THAT MAY IMPACT ENVIRON-
MENTAL REVIEWS"
"LIVING WITH ENVIRONMENTAL
REGULATION - A BUSINESS
CHALLENGE"
Sheppard N. Moore, Chief 2
Environmental Review Section
U.S. EPA, Region IV
Atlanta, Georgia
Charles R. Jeter 4
Regional Administrator
U.S. EPA, Region IV
Atlanta, Georgia
Dr. Benjamin C. Dysart, III 6
Professor of Environmental
and Water Resources Engineering
Clemson University
Jacqueline E. Schafer, Member 25
Council on Environmental Quality
Washington, D.C.
Josephine S. Cooper, Assistant 27
Administrator for External Affairs
U.S. EPA, Headquarters
Washington, D.C.
William D. Dickerson, Director 32
Federal Agency Liaison Division
U.S. EPA, Headquarters
Washington, D.C.
George D. Pence, Professional 41
Staff, Committee on Merchant
Marine and Fisheries
U.S. House of Representatives
Washington, D.C.
James S. Stokes, Esquire 53
Partner, Alston & Bird
Atlanta, Georgia
-------
WORKSHOPS PAGE
WORKSHOP A 7
"The Worst Case Analysis Issue - What Lies Ahead?"
Dinah Bear, General Counsel
Council on Environmental Quality
Washington, D.C.
WORKSHOP B ' 92
"Bottomland Hardwood Ecosystem - Accommodating
Development and Conservation Needs"
Jay Benforado, Ecologist
Office of Federal Activities
U.S. EPA
Washington, D.C.
WORKSHOP C 112
"Case Study of the Application of Bottomland Hardwoods
Community Models"
Wiley M. Kitchens, Section Leader
Community Profiles and
Community Modeling
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
National Coastal Ecosystem Team
Slidell, LA
WORKSHOP D 125
"Environmental Audit"
John C. Nemeth, Manager
Hazardous and Industrial Waste
Management Programs
Georgia Tech Research Institute
Georgia Institute of Technology
Atlanta, GA
WORKSHOP E 141
"Environmental Quality Operations Studies
and Applications"
John Rushing, Deputy Chief of Planning
South Atlantic Division
Corps of Engineers
Atlanta, GA
11
-------
SHEPPARD NEAL MOORE
SHEPPARD NEAL MOORE has been with the U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency (EPA) in Atlanta since it was organized
in 1970. Prior to that time, he was with the Federal Water
Pollution Control Administration (FWPCA), one of the agencies
that formed EPA. He has been involved with environmental
review since 1972 and is currently Chief, NEPA Review Staff.
He spent two years in the Carribbean Area Office in San Juan,
Puerto Rico in 1970 and 1971.
Prior to joining the FWPCA, Mr. Moore worked with the U.S.
Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Soil Conservation
Service, and Extension Service. He also served on the staff
of North Carolina State University (NCSU), Raleigh, N.C.
for several years. The last two years with NCSU were spent
in Lima, Peru where he served as Administrative Assistant and
Economic Advisor to Peru.
Mr. Moore graduated from North Carolina State University in
1955 with a Bachelor of Science degree. He earned graduate
degrees at NCSU and Georgia State University.
Mr. Moore is a native of New Bern, North Carolina. He, his
wife Sarah, and their two children live at 3720 Club Drive,
Kennesaw, Georgia.
-I-
-------
OPENING REMARKS
SHEPPARD N. MOORE
CHIEF, ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW SECTION
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
REGION IV
Good morning. If you will find a seat, we will begin the
Eighth Annual Environmental Review Conference. We have twenty
five Federal agencies represented here today and State, and
local government representatives and private citizens from
sixteen states and Washington, D.C. It is rewarding to see
so many of you that have attended before. In fact, Bill
Dickerson, from EPA's Office of Federal Activities in
Washington, was on the program of the first conference in May
1975. I also see at least three other people in the audience
that were at that first conference and, if my memory serves me
well, have attended each successive conference - John W.
Rushing, Corps, Atlanta; Gary A. Margheim, SCS, Washington,
D.C.; and David H. Densmore, FHWA, Atlanta.
As I have said many times before, I feel that these confer-
ences have opened lines of communications, improved relation-
ships and promoted coordination among the various federal
agencies as well as between the public and private sectors on
environmental issues. We are extremely fortunate again to
have highly qualified speakers and workshop chairpersons and
participates from both the public and private sectors. We
are following our past format in having keynote speakers this
morning and workshops on emerging issues this afternoon and
tomorrow morning.
I urge all of you to attend the Social Hour this evening,
sponsored by Saul Herner and Gene Allen. There will be the
usual excellent selection of wine and cheese so I look
forward to seeing you there.
At this time I would like to recognize Charles R. Jeter,
Regional Administrator of EPA, Region IV. This is his third
conference so he is also becoming an old hand at welcoming
you to Atlanta.
Charles.
-2-
-------
CHARLES R. JETER
CHARLES R. JETER began serving as Regional Administrator of
the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region IV, on July
19, 1981. As the Agency's principal official in the south-
east, Mr. Jeter is responsible for enforcing the Federal
government's pollution control laws in Alabama, Florida,
Georgia, Kentucky, Mississippi, North Carolina, South
Carolina, and Tennessee.
Prior to his EPA appointment, Mr. Jeter held a number of key
positions with the South Carolina Department of Health and
Environmental Control. As Chief, Wastewater and Stream
Quality Control, he directed the state's water pollution
control program from July 1976 until July 1981. Earlier, he
was Director of South Carolina's Industrial and Agricultural
Wastewater Division.
Mr. Jeter is a past national president (1979-1980) of the
Association of State and Interstate Water Pollution Control
Administrators, and a Registered Professional Engineer in the
State of South Carolina.
He graduated from Clemson University in 1963 with a Bachelor
of Science degree, and earned a Master's degree in environ-
mental engineering from Clemson in 1971.
Mr. Jeter is a native of Union, South Carolina. He and his
wife, Helen, have three children.
-3-
-------
WELCOME
CHARLES R. JETER
REGIONAL ADMINISTRATOR
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
REGION IV
It is indeed a pleasure to welcome you to the City of
Atlanta and to Region IVs Eighth Annual Environmental Review
Conference. Again, I want to thank Shep Moore and his
Environmental Review Staff for doing a fine job with the
arrangements for this meeting. Their diligent efforts have
paid off in making this conference more productive each year.
I'm very pleased that Jackie Schafer, a member of the
Council on Environmental Quality, is present and will speak
to us on "The Public Benefits of Private Property."
Also, I am happy that other federal agencies which are so
vital to the success of the NEPA process are represented here
today. The process, as you know, is one primarily involving
the federal community. Let me say here that we in the
Environmental Protection Agency appreciate the cooperation
shown by the Secretary of the Army, the Department of
Agriculture, the Department of the Interior, and others.
My thanks, too, go out to those here from the academic and
business community. Thanks to all of you, the NEPA process
is working.
Last year, I told many of you at this same conference that
EPA was working toward a number of broad objectives. Trying
to improve the scientific basis upon which we make decisions
and regulating in a timely manner are two of them.
I believe I can say we are doing better on both counts.
We are doing our best to obtain a better scientific foundation
for EPA's actions, and, of particular importance to the NEPA
process, we are making every effort to act in an expeditious
and timely fashion.
In closing, I want to thank our speakers and each of you
for participating in what I feel will be a very worthwhile
and rewarding conference. Together we can improve the NEPA
process, and the environmental review process, and thereby
protect the environment and our natural resources.
We appreciate your attendance. If I or my staff can assist
you in any way, please call on us. Have a good meeting!
.-4-
-------
BENJAMIN C. DYSART III
BENJAMIN C. DYSART III is a professor of environmental & water
resources engineering at Clemson University in Clemson, S.C. A
native of Columbia, Tenn., he has been a member of the faculty at
Clemson since 1968. He received his bachelor's and master's
degrees in civil and sanitary engineering, respectively, from
Vanderbilt University. His doctorate is from Georgia Tech where
he majored in civil engineering and specialized in water
resources planning, development, and management. Prior to his
graduate studies, he was a staff engineer with Union Carbide
Corp. for three years.
He has developed and teaches both graduate and undergraduate
courses. In 1982, his contributions as a teacher and researcher
were recognized by his College of Engineering peers through the
McQueen Quattlebaum Faculty Achievement Award. Ben has been
major advisor to over 60 master's and doctoral students at
Clemson. He is also active in conducting research supported by
industry and government agencies and publishing, and serves as a
technical and policy-level consultant to major industries on
water resources, energy, water quality, and environmental protec-
tion matters.
Until 1975, he was director of Clemson's Water Resources
Engineering graduate program and a member of the Water Resources
Research Institute's Directorate. He is past president of the
Association of Environmental Engineering Professors, a member and
past chairman of the S.C. Dept. of Health & Environmental
Control's Environmental Quality Control Advisory Committee, is
and was a member of the S.C. Heritage Advisory Board. In March
of 1984, S.C. Gov. Dick Riley awarded Ben the Order of the
Palmetto, the highest recognition that can be given to a citizen
of S.C.
He has served in advisory capacities or as a consultant to a
number of federal departments or agencies including NSF,
Interior, Commerce, Army, TVA, Energy, and the Environmental
Protection Agency. During 1975-76, he worked full-time at the
policy level in Washington, serving as Science Advisor to the
Assistant Secretary of the Army for Civil Works.
From 1979 to 1982, he served on the Department of the Interior's
Outer Continental Shelf Advisory Board and its Scientific
Committee as a Secretarial appointee. In 1983, he was named to
the EPA's Science Advisory Board and its Environmental
Engineering Committee by the Administrator. In March, he was
re-elected to a second term as president and chairman of the
Board of the 4.3-million-member National Wildlife Federation.
-5-
-------
"SOME THOUGHTS ON IMPROVING THE ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW PROCESS"
BENJAMIN C. DYSART III
PRESIDENT AND CHAIRMAN OF THE BOARD
NATIONAL WILDLIFE FEDERATION
Thank you Shep. I have to tell all of you that Regional
Administrator Charles Jeter is one of our most distinguished
Clemson environmental engineering alumni. And I say that because
it's my opinion, and the opinion of others whom I respect, that
he's making a real difference for the good, in a slot where the
quality of the technical review and—much more important—the
quality of the decision-making process is critical.
We turn out a lot of good environmental engineers with graduate
degrees but very few who, first, have a real opportunity to
actually have a significant impact in a major sphere of influence
and, second, are able to turn such an opportunity into reality—
out in the real world.
When Charles asked me to attend this meeting and speak on improv-
ing the environmental review process, I thought: "Sure, that's
something that I can offer some helpful suggestions on." I must
say at the outset that I don't have any answers or quick fixes or
whatnot; but I do have some well-informed and thoughtful views,
observations, etc.
In fact, I think I've done a fair amount already to improve
E.P.A.'s environmental review process by sending some of my best
graduates to E.P.A., people like Karen Klima at headquarters, Cam
Warren here in Atlanta, and Ken Barry, Bill Cosgrove, and Tom
Barnwell over in Athens.
-6-
-------
"SOME THOUGHTS ON IMPROVING THE ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW PROCESS"
Of course, I believe I also contribute to the quality of federal
agencies"s environmental review by sending some of my best
environmental engineering graduates to the private sector. Some
outstanding examples that come to mind—and not just because
they're here today—are Chris Thompson with DuPont at their
Savannah River Plant and Bob Edmonds with Duke Power.
An outfit like Duke Power which has, year in and year out, the
most efficient coal-fired power plant in the U.S.—and the most
efficient entire thermal generating system in the U.S.--is going
to be pretty careful about conserving resources and doing what's
responsible and good for the environment in general.
It's my opinion that all of you federal agency folks are going to
have less problems in the environmental review area with a
company that has a long history of environmental sensitivity
and—this is very important—a management, top to bottom, that
pushes wise and responsible resource use on all fronts for a lot
of right reasons. I know that if more major industries conducted
internal environmental audits with teeth in them like Duke
does—audits dealing with the performance of air pollution
controls, erosion control systems, etc.—your jobs would be a lot
easier. And air and water quality problems would be fewer and
less severe.
But anyway, in his invitation, Charles deftly added a little
caveat that I should speak on improving the environmental review
process but "within the limited resources available." Now those
are words calculated to strike terror in any federal or state—or
academic—bureaucrat's voice if I ever heard them.
But tight dollars seem to be the burden that environmental
regulations, and regulatory agencies have been operating under
-7-
-------
"SOME THOUGHTS ON IMPROVING THE ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW PROCESS"
for the last several years. Almost everyone has had to try to do
more with less in recent times.
All of you who are regulators carry another heavy burden. As
regulators, you have a credibility problem. It's tough to say
how important that problem really is, especially in the eyes of
the public, but it certainly is a problem on the Washington
scene.
President Reagan, Vice President Bush, and many of their early
appointees championed the cause of regulatory reform. Even
President Carter and his appointees were sniffing around in the
same general area.
Environmental regulations got caught up in a government-wide
attempt to reduce unnecessary regulation, cut back on laws, slash
red tape—and across the board—"make government function more
efficiently." That, in and of itself, wasn't really too bad an
idea at all. People who agreed that environmental regulation
could—and should—be more efficient and more effective included
me, Bill Ruckelshaus, and most other good, reasonable, and decent
folks I know in both the public and private sectors.
The Clean Water Act, the Clean Air Act, the Endangered Species
Act, and their implementing regulations were just a few of the
rules caught up in the "mandate" to change the Nation's whole
approach to the environment. The line between, on the one hand,
environmental laws and regulations and, on the other hand,
"waste, fraud, and abuse"—all the latter to be aggressively
rooted out, exposed, and done away with you'll recall—became
pretty blurry.
-------
"SOME THOUGHTS ON IMPROVING THE ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW PROCESS"
The plan was to clamp a lid on all of you faceless bureaucrats,
and prevent you from influencing and hurting the economy and the
personal lives of our citizens. In other words, David Stockman,
the Heritage Foundation, and Jerry Falwell aimed to get you
people off our backs, at least off the backs of the "good guys".
They were going to teach you federal bureaucrats how to park your
bicycles straight. Somehow, I don't think the real pros I know
at E.P.A. who have been around a long time like Paul Traina,
Howard Zeller, and Alec Little needed anybody to tell them how to
park their bicycles 1
In any event though, the silk banners were unfurled, the golden
trumpets sounded, and Ann Gorsuch, Jim Watt, and Bill Gianelli
charged off to slay the dragons of environmental regulation and
unleash the fettered genius of private enterprise, voodoo eco-
nomics, and deregulation. And lucky for the American public they
promptly charged right off a cliff. Sometimes unleashing is the
last thing you want to do, especially if you care about an
unsoiled neighborhood.
The" three of them—dragon-slayers all--and what they represent
are pretty muchgone from Washington, for now. And why are they
gone? They're gone because the Administration misread the public
and their "mandate" on the issue of the environment. They
finally realized it after two or three years of euphoric
de-regulation and teeth pulling, and as the '84 election replaced
all other items as priorities number 1, number 2, and number 3,
and it became desirable to cut some political losses and lower
some profiles.
Of course, I'll freely concede that this isn't too different from
the game plan for most any incumbent president, i.e., letting an
election and the polls set your agenda for you.
-9-
-------
"SOME THOUGHTS ON IMPROVING
THE
instances to the point where,
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW PROCESS"
In 1982 and 1983, poll after poll showed that the American people
didn't like what President Reagan—or whoever gives the environ-
mental orders at the White touse—had ordered his dark-draped
knights to do to the environment. Balance was lost in most
by a two-to-one margin, Americans
considered that the Reagan-Gorpuch E.P.A. was "biased in favor of
industries that pollute."
To correct that problem,
the President got rid of his
environmentally-benighted knights and many of their minions, and
he replaced them with more
diplomatic folks such as Bill
Ruckelshaus and Bill Clark. Since then, they've been cleaning up
the act and/or controlling political damage, depending mainly on
your reading of the signs and
the tea leaves.
It's hard to know, to be perfectly honest, how much of the new
effort at E.P.A. and Interior is born-again environmentalism and
how much is simple electioneering, but things have improved,
certainly relative to the gree
in the Reagan Administratior
movement as relative progres s toward a
environment.
t dark depths things got to earlier
I'll accept this new relative
cleaner and healthier
It's sort of like somebody's chopping off a dog's tail, and then
giving "Old Spot" a piece of
it sure beats starving in the
I believe this is about as
relative progress from the
environmental quality issues
it back for dinner. To "Old Spot",
short run--but it's a tough way to
do it. With respect to sme of our Nation's environmental
protection and resource majnagement programs, the President
chopped off the dog's tail right behind the flea collar.
good as it's going to get, i.e., some
lows, because no advice on substantive
is sought by the President. And
-10-
-------
"SOME THOUGHTS ON IMPROVING THE ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW PROCESS"
what I'm convinced is right good advice that Bill Ruckelshaus can
and does—or did—provide, has fallen on deaf ears in the Oval
Office.
This is my view as an interested and informed observer and
participant, and is based additionally on thoughtful and candid
observations of others—in and out of government—who are close
enough to the process and the principals to have direct knowl-
edge.
You'll notice that I haven't said the new approach to improve
things or patch up problems is an across-the-board move by the
Administration. While Interior and E.P.A. are improving, rela-
tive to where they were, some other agencies haven't gotten the
word yet. For instance, the Corps of Engineers is still out
there trying to slay non-existent dragons.
In spite of the Congress and the Courts, the Corps still seems to
be doing its best to destroy Section 404 from within. I think
they've been working pretty hard to do that—to spike their own
cannon—since at least 1975, when I went with the Secretary of
the Army's office and the Corps was fanning the flames of opposi-
tion to 404.
At N.W.F. we've seen example after example from the Corps, where
they refuse to do their job the way the laws and regulations
require. The examples include harm to endangered species from
failure to exercise 404 authority, failure to claim jurisdiction,
failure to obtain the opinions of E.P.A. and Interior on individ-
ual permits, failure to apply environmentally-favorable court
decisions beyond the jurisdiction of the ruling court, and
failure to enforce existing settlement agreements—all of this
just on Section 404.
-11-
-------
"SOME THOUGHTS ON IMPROVING THE ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW PROCESS"
Last Thursday, October llth, we went back to court to sue the
Corps for breach of the 404 regulations settlement agreement.
They missed the manadated time frame, which was a few weeks ago;
but, so far as we were concerned, that was pretty minor.
The really important problem was that they grandfathered out all
projects under construction, plus all projects authorized or even
under any serious contemplation. That doesn't leave nearly
enough for the settlement to apply to. As we saw it, they
trampled underfoot the spirit of the good-faith settlement, which
many individuals in various federal agencies accused us at N.W.F.
of making too "reasonable" in the original settlement negotia-
tions.
For some reason, the Corps is very reluctant to listen to the
public on wetlands protection. They—hopefully not too many of
you in this room--simply aren't doing their job, and the American
public is not being well served by their actions. This is most
unfortunate because the American public strongly supports protec-
tion of our environment; and the Corps is absolutely capable of
doing a first-rate job on any mission they're ordered to perform,
if they want to do it well.
I'm very hopeful that Vald Heiberg's arrival as the new Chief of
Engineers will bring a lot of improved performance. I'm sure he
wants to keep his well-deserved reputation as a world-class
water-walker intact, through producing superior results on tough
issues where others couldn't seem to bring them into focus.
The people and parts of their government are too often at logger-
heads today. And that's unfortunate and unproductive; and it
leads to wasted time, money, resources, and opportunities in the
-12-
-------
"SOME THOUGHTS ON IMPROVING THE ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW PROCESS"
environmental review area and in other areas. Let me give you
just a couple of additional examples.
We see a number of seemingly strong pro-environment positions
articulated by some of this Administration's agency appointees in
meetings and with Members of Congress. But then when the O.M.B.
letters come out expressing the thought-out "official" prior-
ities, views, and positions of this Administration, they're often
much weaker or fuzzier.
Here's another example. At the same time the Administration was
attempting to review regulations affecting the private sector
with an eye toward requiring benefit-cost analysis, cost effec-
tiveness determinations, etc., these arguments were stood on
their heads as they repealed the well thought out "Principles and
Standards", with their uniform procedures for required benefit-
cost analysis for federal bureaucrats to follow in planning
federal water resources projects. This seems to suggest--and
rather strongly—that the goal of all the review was less envi-
ronmental protection and not simply less regulation.
Another federal environmental review problem is reminiscent of
old problems. I'm referring to F.E.R.C. (Federal Energy
Regulatory Commission) and their N.E.P.A. regulations on hydro-
power. These regulations aren't consistent with C.E.Q.'s (the
President's Council on Environmental Quality) N.E.P.A. guide-
lines. This is a real problem, as they review hundreds of hydro
projects per year.
With the so-called "small hydro boom"—stimulated by higher
energy prices and the tax bills passed by Congress between 1978
and 1980, F.E.R.C. has gone from a few dozen small hydro projects
to over a thousand permit applications a year. These are
-13-
-------
"SOME THOUGHTS ON IMPROVING THE ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW PROCESS"
centered, for the most part, in New England, the Pacific
Northwest, and" California—the major hotspots of small hydro
activity. This should be viewed as a serious problem, because
this review is going on outside the context of N.E.P.A. A host
of important federal agencies with major environmental review
responsibilities—e.g. the National Marine Fisheries Service, the
Fish and Wildlife Service, and E.P.A.—are simply out of the
loop.
Unfortunately, actions like these I mentioned and others force
the National Wildlife Federation to go to court. Not all differ-
ences need be settled by litigation; in fact, the fewer the
better so far as I'm concerned. Certainly we don't avoid the
tough situations that end up in court, but we always prefer to
seek cooperation through fair-minded resolution and even-tempered
dialogue.
We don't mobilize and deploy our scarce organizational resources
carelessly. Litigation is a last resort; but when we go to
court, we expect to win because we're very careful to be sure
we're right just as often as we can. Of course our flexibility
in negotiation is limited by the expectations of our membership
and resolutions adopted by our voting delegates from all over
America at our annual meetings.
For example, 73% of our members believe that there, are too few
environmental regulations; and 97% believe that the federal
government should continue to restrict development that damages
wetlands. More than 90% believe that Congress should require
utilities to reduce sulfur emissions that form acid precipita-
tion, even if it means increasing electric rates.
Our people—the 4.3 million members of N.W.F. and our volunteer
leadership and our staff—realize there's no free lunch. And
-14-
-------
"SOME THOUGHTS ON IMPROVING THE ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW PROCESS"
they don't want the polluters getting a "free ride", especially
when we all know that society actually picks up the tab.
And polls show that our membership is right in step with the
opinion of the rest of the public on questions of environmental
protection. Every credible poll taken in recent years has con-
firmed and reconfirmed that the public's overwhelming desire is
to protect the environment, to clean up the air and water, and to
maintain important wildlife habitat.
The public supports you in your role as regulators and protectors
of the environment. But the public—and our membership and
leadership—recognizes that a clean environment and a healthy
economy can and must go hand in hand. So they don't want you to
be simple nay-sayers and nigglers.
Beyond that, the public obviously wants government to be effi-
cient. And at least partly this is because it's their dollars
you're spending, just like it's their environment you have a
public-trust responsibility to look out for.
Please don't confuse these signals. I'm saying the public
expects you to do a good job and watch what it costs, not just
minimize environmental regulation cost. As tax-payers, we all
want our employees to be prudent in their approach to these
functions. As you can tell, I've worked my way back to that
phrase: "within the limited resources available."
Everyone has some limit to their resources. Although the
National Wildlife Federation is the world's largest conservation
organization—with 80-some-odd-percent of all Americans who hold
membership in or support conservation and environmental
organizations—even we certainly have a limit to the resources we
-15-
-------
"SOME THOUGHTS ON IMPROVING THE ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW PROCESS"
can put into any particular effort. So we can be sympathetic
when an agency is under-funded and under-staffed and unable to do
the kind of thorough, efficient, effective, and timely job most
agency professionals would prefer.
We do our best by devoting a lot of man-years and dollars to
working in the legislative arena to see that resource agencies—
and the environmental review process in particular—are more
adequately funded. As a footnote, I'll tell you we aren't always
as successful at funding these functions as we'd like; but we'll
keep trying.
In spite of the limit to our resources, National Wildlife
Federation is involved in a wide range of issues. I've already
mentioned wetlands—one of our top concerns—and one in which we
put a lot of legislative, scientific, and legal resources.
We're very actively involved in the wetlands area for lots of
good reasons, in addition to the fact that the N.W.F.'s president
and Board chairman is a serious supporter of everything that's
good for ducks and waterfowl hunting. We're involved with
legislative efforts to fund acquisition and proper management of
wetlands, the rule-making process under Section 404, and a
variety of legal actions. Here in the southeast, we've estab-
lished a regional office—originally funded by E.P.A. as a
wetlands-resource center—that focuses much of its energies on
wetlands.
We're also involved with energy development problems, surface
mining regulations, acid precipitation, water project develop-
ment, and a whole host of other areas.
-16-
-------
"SOME THOUGHTS ON IMPROVING THE ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW PROCESS"
N.W.F. works at both the federal and state levels. We work with
agencies, other public-interest and conservation organizations,
and the private sector.
Many of you are probably familiar with individual executives,
scientists, lobbyists, and attorneys on our staff. These are
really good professionals, top-flight people like Lynn Greenwalt,
Norm Dean, Al Wentz, Ed Osann, Ken Kamlet, Sharon Newsome, Doug
Miller, Jay Hair, and--of course—the hot-shots that help them do
their good work.
Our staff is hired and retained to provide an objective, rea-
soned, solid technical analysis of an issue. In this way, we
can base our positions on the best possible set of facts. In my
opinion, if we don't have the best people around in an area on
our team, then we shouldn't be playing in that particular game.
Fortunately, we've got--in my typically humble opinion--some real
acknowledged super-stars in their specialty areas.
As a rule, when we come to the table to discuss problems with
projects, we've already devoted considerable resources in staff
time and money to be sure that we have a reasonably accurate
picture of the problem we're addressing. My point is that we
participate in the environmental review process on a regular
basis as active and informed participants.
And I think we at N.W.F. want the same thing from this process
that all professionals in this field want, and that's informed
environmental review that leads to sound environmentally sound
and economically sound decisions. As I've already indicated,
we'll do our best to work these things out in an effective,
credible way without going to all the formal administrative and
legal steps that are used in last-resort situations.
-17-
-------
"SOME THOUGHTS ON IMPROVING; THE ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW PROCESS"
Let me give you an exampl
things out without knocking
group that we call the "N
The Council is a forum for
ways to identify and deal
between responsible corpor;
vation community, and
arriving at workable
better for all.
thus
solutions
It's a goal of the Council
improve both industrial
We hope that this approach
frontations in the future
regulators easier.
to design constructive proposals to
roductivity and environmental quality.
will help minimize adversarial con-
and that should make your jobs as
The Council is a meeting g
N.W.F. leaders, where we
discussion of items where
use of natural resources
program, where we attempt
successfully dealt with.
Certainly we and industry
every detail, but there's
first project, our Corpo
wetlands loss, and looked
problem—and the important
As a first step toward
on a "Statement of Policy
Wetlands." The 12 major
statement—including a
couple
of one of our major efforts to work
heads. In 1982, N.W.F. formed a
W.F. Corporate Conservation Council."
examining issues and developing better
with future problems which may arise
te America and the responsible conser-
provide more reasonable means for
and, in general, making things
ground of top industrial executives and
hkve the opportunity for frank and open
we have a mutual interest in the wise
The Council also has an outreach
to spread the word on issues we've
don't always see totally eye-to-eye on
an awful lot of common ground. For its
rate Council tackled the problem of
at the part that industry plays in that
part it can play in the solution.
helping
resolve of the problem, we agreed
and Practices for the Conservation of
orporations that initially signed the
here in the southeast—and the
-18-
-------
"SOME THOUGHTS ON IMPROVING THE ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW PROCESS"
numerous groups that've signed since pledged to "be particularly
sensitive to wetland problems, and to be attentive to these
issues in the conduct of [their] businesses."
The statement isn't just fluff and window dressing. Several of
the corporations have taken substantial affirmative steps to help
advance the cause of wetlands conservation. And, perhaps most
important, the Council is moving forward on other issues, and
working with N.W.F. to solve problems before we end up in a
courtroom.
Another example of a positive step that should help to solve
environmental problems is Clean Sites, Inc. That's a non-profit,
industry-funded organization that'll initiate clean-ups at—
eventually—hundreds of abandoned hazardous waste dump sites
throughout the country.
The chief executive officers of N.W.F. and the Conservation
Foundation, both highly respected middle-of-the-road Washington-
based conservation organizations, were members o^ the seven-man
Steering Committee that converted the idea into phase one of a
reality. We hope this cooperations will speed the process of
solving a critical national problem without resorting at the
beginning to the regulatory and legal systems.
I've provided these examples not just to impress you but to show
you that, if we all work together from the beginning, most
problems can be resolved before they become contests of brute
strength. I know, as do many of you here know, that when the
bull elephants go at it in the jungle, though there may be a
victor, even he seldom walks away without scars.
Because of my work as an environmental and water resources
engineering faculty member at Clemson University over in South
-19-
-------
"SOME THOUGHTS ON IMPROVING THE ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW PROCESS"
Carolina, I speak to many groups of engineers and scientists.
The story I'll tell them is very much like the one I'm telling
you. The process needs to be open to all who are interested.
How can this process be improved? One good way is for you to
improve the quality of public participation in agency decision
making. I think I can hear the groans, and I know many of you
look at greater public involvement as a big pain in the rear.
I'm not talking about pro forma public hearings—in a rented-out
high school gym, presided over by zombies, and convened only to
create a fat record, widely suspected of being ignored by the
real decision makers. But I'll say this: if you involve the
public in your decision making in the right way, in a meaningful
way, and at the right times, it can be a very positive part of
any project planning effort.
If you don't involve the public, then you're simply begging for
the more typical reaction of static and bitter fights from the
public. You'll deserve it. I hope you can understand why we're
more than vexed when unnecessary problems occur in the environ-
mental review process.
Many of these problems are a result of poor communications—
simply a failure to inform citizens who are concerned with a
permit or project, lack of sufficient notice time, inadequate
provision of information to the public, notifying conservation-
ists pretty much as an afterthought—or at a point in the process
when it's clearly too late to be meaningfully involved, and
failure to give serious consideration to the comments and con-
cerns of thoughtful citizens. These communication problems are
unfortunate, since they often lead to bigger problems and long-
term problems.
-Zfl-
-------
"SOME THOUGHTS ON IMPROVING THE ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW PROCESS"
Our major concern is simply that inadequate environmental review
results in an inferior environmental product. Failures in commu-
nication cause stresses between participants in the process, and
that further compounds the problem. There are other problems in
the process, such as within agencies and among agencies.
I'm sure every person here today can think of examples of prob-
lems that have cropped up in the review of projects or other
environmental reviews. I know I've seen more than my share--as a
technical consultant to industry, as a member of the South
Carolina Environmental Quality Control Advisory Committee, as a
Board member of my South Carolina Wildlife Federation, as presi-
dent of N.W.F., as a member of E.P.A.'s Science Advisory Board,
and back when I was a member of the O.C.S. Board and science
advisor to the Assistant Secretary of the Army for Civil Works.
But let's not be negative about this effort. Certainly we can
all find reasons why our reviews have failed--or simply been
inadequate--but that sure doesn't get us anywhere. Every person
in this room today knows ways to improve the environmental review
process, and this is true even if you don't realize you know ways
to improve the system.
Stop and think: how many times have you seen a process go astray
when a little better planning, better communication, or some
other minor—or major--change could have produced a better, more
environmentally sound review process?
As I wind up, I'm going to issue a challenge to you. I challenge
each of you here, first, to identify one mechanism to improve the
environmental review process and, second, to advocate that change
at this meeting. I further challenge each of you to attempt to
implement that new mechanism—plus one other that you hear about
at this meeting—over the next year.
-21-
-------
"SOME THOUGHTS ON IMPROVING THE ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW PROCESS"
For you administrators in the audience, I give you a special
challenge, beyond the conception of one idea. I challenge all of
you administrators to listen seriously to all these other ideas,
throw away your stock reasons why the ideas won't work, and then
do your best to make them work.
No one is in a better position to put forth those new ideas than
you who are here today. If you'll accept this challenge, then
perhaps next year you can return to this meeting and talk about
some really significant and exciting accomplishments.
I'm convinced that the American public is ill-served by unneces-
sary adversarial approaches to complex environmental issues.
Certainly there'll always be cases where no other approach will
serve the public good so well as a well-won court action or two.
But, in most cases, a reasonable approach to the environmental
review process will negate the need for such harsh follow-up
action.
I encourage you--in your roles as regulators and protectors of
the environment, as leaders of citizens groups, and as managers
in the private sector with environmental responsibilities—to
take the steps to make environmental decision making a better
process. It'll pay handsome dividends for all of us, the Nation,
and our environment.
Good people pulling together—good public- and private-sector
people, involved early enough in the process—can make the
environmental review process better and produce good results
without a lot of wasted resources in the review process.
In closing, I'd like to thank you for inviting me and N.W.F. to
be a part of your conference this year. You have a fine program,
-22-
-------
"SOME THOUGHTS ON IMPROVING THE ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW PROCESS"
lots of knowledgeable and stimulating speakers, and some very
good workshops topics, I commend E.P.A. Region IV, Shep Moore,
Charles Jeter, and everyone who has been involved in putting this
conference together. I believe it's going to be beneficial to
all of us who are fortunate enough to be invited to be here and
be a part of it.
-23-
-------
JACQUELINE E. SCHAFER
JACQUELINE E. SCHAFER was appointed by President Reagan to be
a Member of the Council on Environmental Quality on May 25,
1984. Her nomination was confirmed unanimously by the United
States Senate. Members of the Council serve at the pleasure
of the President.
Miss Schafer joined the Council after serving as Regional
Administrator of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
Region II, in New York City. Region II includes New York,
New Jersey, Puerto Rico, and the U.S. Virgin Islands. As
Regional Administrator since March 1982, Miss Schafer managed
a yearly operating budget of $20 million to support 500
employees, including environmental scientists and engineers,
inspectors, and attorneys. The Region also awarded $25
million annually for state-delegated environmental programs
and made construction grants to municipalities from a $410
million annual allotment for wastewater treatment facilities.
Nearly one-fourth of the hazardous waste sites on the "Superfund1
National Priorities List is located in Region II.
Miss Schafer began her career in environmental policy as a
Legislative Assistant to U.S. Senator James L. Buckley of New
York from 1971 through 1976. During that time, Senator
Buckley served as a member of three Senate Committees
responsible for writing nearly all of the Nation's federal
environmental protection statutes: Environment and Public
Works, Interior and Insular Affairs, and Commerce Committees.
From 1977 to 1982, Miss Schafer served as a Professional
Staff Member to the U.S. Senate Committee on Environment and
Public Works, under the Chairmanship of Senator Robert T.
Stafford of Vermont, where she was responsible for assisting
the Republican Members in the development and oversight of
environmental protection and economic development policy and
laws. In these capacities she has contributed to a wide
range of environmental legislation, most particularly the
Clean Water Act, the Safe Drinking Water Act, the Marine
Protection, Research and Sanctuaries Act (ocean dumping
title), and the National Environmental Policy Act.
Miss Schafer was born in Greenport, New York, and grew up in
New York, New Jersey, and Connecticut. She holds an A.B. in
Economics (1967) from Middlebury College, Middlebury, Vermont.
Before Senator Buckley's election in 1970, Miss Schafer worked
on his campaign in New York City and handled all environmental
issues for him. From 1967 to 1970, she was an analyst in the
banking studies department and a research assistant in the
research department of the Federal Reserve Bank of New York.
Miss Schafer now resides in Washington, D.C.
-24-
-------
Ms. Schafer's address, "Exploring the Public
Benefits of Private Property," was unavailable
at printing time.
-25-
-------
JOSEPHINE S. COOPER
JOSEPHINE S. COOPER was nominated by President Reagan to
become the first Assistant Administrator for EPA's Office of
External Affairs. She was confirmed unanimously by the Senate
on October 7, 1983, and was sworn in on October 13, 1983.
In this position, Ms. Cooper is responsible for Agency liaison
with the Congress, the public, press, other federal agencies,
states, environmental, union and industry groups. In addition,
she administers EPA's 404 Dredge and Fill program and serves
as the National Program Manager for implementation of the
National Environmental Policy Act and the Federal Facilities
Compliance Program.
At the time she was appointed to her current position,
Ms. Cooper worked in the capacity of professional staff on
the Committee on Environment and Public Works. In this
capacity, she developed amendments and new initiatives in
hazardous waste legislation, including Superfund and Resources
Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA). Her other responsi-
bilities included authorization of the environmental research
and development program and provision of counsel to Senator
Howard Baker on all committee issues, including Clean Air Act,
Clean Water Act, Tennessee Valley Authority, and fish and
wildlife activities.
From 1968 until 1981, Ms. Cooper served in various capacities
at EPA. Her responsibilities covered a wide variety of
environmental issues and her experience includes coordination
of program planning and budget for research related to
hazardous waste, drinking water and groundwater, development
of Agency policy on population exposure to environmental
contaminants, preparation of health assessment documents on
antimony and zinc, development of ambient air quality standard
for lead, development of Agency model for environmental impact
analysis of regulatory actions, and evaluation of transportation
control strategies.
She left the Agency in 1979 to spend a year as an American
Political Science Association Congressional Fellow working as
a Legislative Assistant to Senator Howard Baker of Tennessee
and Congressman Dick Cheney of Wyoming.
During her career in the Federal government, Ms. Cooper has
received numerous awards for outstanding performance,
including a Bronze Medal for Commendable Service in 1978.
Ms. Cooper earned a Master of Science Degree in management
from Duke University and graduated Cum Laude from Meredith
College in 1967 with a Bachelor of Arts in Business and
Economi cs.
Ms. Cooper is a native of Raleigh, North Carolina and currently
resides in Alexandria, Virginia.
-26-
-------
Revisions to the EPA
Environmental Review Process
Introductory Remarks
By: Jo Cooper
It's a real pleasure for me to be here and to be able to participate
in this conference. I firmly believe that every step we can take to
improve communications between agencies, such as conferences like this,
will have a positive influence on improving federal decisionmaking. I
think all of our agencies are linked together to one degree or another
and that we can benefit from sharing relevant expertise.
It's been less than a year since my office, the Office of External
Affairs (OEA) was formed so we are still in the process of letting people
know what the new organization looks like and what we are all about.
Figure 1 shows the organizational structure of OEA. The four offices
that make up OEA consist of:
0 The Office of Federal Activities
0 The Office of Public Affairs
0 The Office of Intergovernmental Liaison
0 The Office of Congressional Liaison
As the name implies, the thing that binds all these offices together
is the need for effective communication between EPA and the rest of the
world. Within this context, the immediate goals of the Office of External
Affairs are the following: (1) to restore credibility and the public's
faith in EPA; (2) to improve Agency effectiveness in its dealings with
Congress; (3) to establish sincere and effective outreach programs through
State and local government contacts, public interest groups; (4) to
encourage broader citizen participation in the decisionmaking process;
and (5) to coordinate and strengthen contacts with other Federal agencies.
-27-
-------
ASSISTANT ADMINISTRATOR
FOR
EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
ASSISTANT
ADMINISTRATOR
Deputy Assistant
Administrator/
Staff
Management
Support
Staff
Office
of
Federal
Activities
Office
of
Public
Affairs
Off-ice
of
Intergovernmental
Liaison
Office
of
Congressional
Liaison
Figure 1
-------
These goals are especially relevant in the NEPA area where the basic
idea is to coordinate proposals for major Federal actions with all relevant
agencies. Within OEA, the oversight responsibility for both the EPA
preparation of NEPA documents and the review of other agency's NEPA
documents is within the Office of Federal Activities (OFA). Dr. Allan Hirsch,
a long time Federal employee with wide EPA experience, as well as experience
at other Federal Agencies is the Director of that office. Figure 2 shows
the OFA organizational structure.
OFA manages four major programs: Federal Facilities Compliance, 404
Dredge and Fill, and NEPA Compliance, and 309 Review.
0 The Federal Facilities Compliance program provides a
mechanism for EPA to assist Federal agencies with
budgeting, building and operating pollution control
equipment to achieve compliance with environmental
requirements.
0 The 404 Dredge and Fill program provides a mechanism for
EPA to coordinate activities with the U.S. Army Corps
of Engineers. The thrust of this jointly administered
program is to regulate discharges of dredged and fill
material in U.S. waters in an environmentally sound
manner, and assist States in assuming the Corps program.
0 The NEPA compliance program ensures that EPA encorporates
multi-media environmental considerations into our
Federally related actions, including municipal construction
grants and New Source National Pollutant Discharge
Elimination System permitting.
-28-
-------
OFFICE OF FEDERAL ACTIVITIES
C
fD
rO
Allan
Hirsch
Director
Joan Jennings
Secretary
1
David Davis
Deputy 01 rector
Pearl Young
Secretary
Holly Darley
Receptionist
Special
Federal Facilities
Compliance Staff
LPP Herwig. Chief
Lt. Col Dean Nelson
Programs
Federal Agency * Analysis Division
Liaison Division Anne Miller, Director
William Dickerson, Director Pearl Cross, Sec.
Debra
Carson, Secretary
Alexander Williams
Ken Mittelholtz I
1 1
I Environmental *
Land S Water Oceans Team Analysis Team
! Leigh Price
" " 1
1
Regulatory Program Development
Aquatic Resource
Division
John Meagher, Director
Mary Hinton, Sec.
Stan Franczak
Valerie Watkins
* Management Staff Policy and Regulations Program Operations
Resource Team Armand Lepage, Joseph Montgomery, Frank Rusincovitch, Chief
Margaret Schneider, Team Leader Team Leader
Team Leader Loudean Melvin, Sec. Judy Troast
Maggie Jarrett, Sec. Dale Manty John Gerba
David Durham Virginia Fox-Norse
Eileen Nyd
a-Zeizel
Branch Branch
Victoria Nelson. Sec. Suzanne Schwartz, Chief Susan Sarason, Chief
Vlrgl
Augusta Wills Bill
Harold Podson Lori
Greg
nla Pickling, Sec. Marjorie Lucero, Sec
Sipple Bill Davis
Williams Charles Stark
Peck
Management Information Rosanna Ciupek
Unit
Jan Shaw, Team Leader
Sandra Perrin
Marilyn Henderson
Dawn Roberts
Terrence Beasley
-------
0 Section 309 of the Clean Air Act (the "309 review process")
requires EPA to review and comment on actions taken by Federal
agencies. This process, which is the subject of this
conference, allows us to work with Federal agencies to ensure
that their planned actions are environmentally sound and
consistent with EPA regulatory responsibilities.
As you all know, EPA is heavily involved in the overall NEPA process
through our responsibility to review and comment on all major Federal
actions effecting the environment. We have recently revised our internal
procedures for this process and have added a significant emphasis on
coordination with other federal agencys1. In general, we are trying to
strengthen coordination in three areas:
o Communications with other agencys - that is, a better
working relationship between agencys at both the staff
and political levels. I think this is a key step in
working out misunderstandings without a public shoot
out.
o Consistency and predictability in our review actions -
we want lead agencys to clearly understand what our
position is and what we intend to do about it.
o Follow-up - we intend to meet with lead agencys, at
whatever level is necessary, to discuss all draft
EIS comments where we have identified significant
environmental problems with the proposed action.
-29-
-------
Bill Dickerson will be going into more detail on these changes
to our procedures in just a minute. To set the stage for what he will be
describing and to reinforce your understanding of the EPA commitment to
improving coordination, I would like to state my personal commitment
to working with Federal agencies both from the standpoint of general
coordination of our activities and of working out problems on specific
issues. I hope you all are also willing to work harder at improving
communication - otherwise it won't work.
Again, I'm pleased to be here and look forward to talking to you over
the next several days.
-30-
-------
WILLIAM D. DICKERSON
WILLIAM D. DICKERSON's Division acts as the national program
manager for carrying out EPA's responsibility to review and
comment on proposed major Federal actions. This responsibility
includes development of national policy and guidance for the
oversight procedures for the review process, carrying out
liaison activities with Headquarters offices of other Federal
Agencies, and managing the review of proposed national level
Federal actions and proposed environmental regulations.
Mr. Dickerson has been with EPA since 1972 and has worked
extensively in the area of environmental review procedures
within the NEPA context. Prior to 1972, Mr. Dickerson worked
for TRW System, Incorporated, where he developed, under contract
to EPA, the Air Quality Display Model and assisted EPA in
developing several State Air Implementation Plans.
Mr. Dickerson earned a Master of Science degree from the
University of Washington and Bachelor of Science degree from
Kansas State University. He has also done graduate work in
Mathematics and optimization theory.
Mr. Dickerson is a native of Wichita, Kansas, and currently
resides in Silver Spring, Maryland.
-31-
-------
Current Revisions to the EPA
Environmental Review Process
By: William D. Dickerson
For those of you that have been in the EIS game for any length of
time, you are aware that EPA has the responsibility to, and in fact does,
review and comment on all Federal EIS's. We have been doing this since
1970 when Section 309 was added to the Clean Air Act. That was a banner
year for us because NEPA, EPA, and Section 309 of the CAA were all created
at that time. Since then we have been playing hop-skotch with CEQ in
developing guidance for carrying out EPA's part of the NEPA bargin with
Federal agencies.
Figure 1 shows the evolution of the both CEQ regulations and the EPA
procedures for implementing the CAA Section 309 requirements. Several
specific points are especially worth noting in Figure 1. First, the EPA
notion of "rating" impact statements was first introduced in our 1972
guidance. Although the rating system has changed somewhat since then it
seems to be "institionalized" at this point and, on balance, has been
helpful in carrying out the review process. We intend to keep on using
it and have, we think, strengthened it in the latest revision to our
guidelines. The 1977 CEQ/EPA Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) transferred
the responsibility for managing the filing of Federal EIS's from CEQ to
EPA. While this did not directly effect EPA's review function, it has
resulted in a closer and more productive liaison relationship with a
number of agencies. Finally, Figure 1 shows that the current revision of
our review guidance was completed October 1, 1983. Since this guidance
document will set the framework for future EPA reviews, I would like to
describe the priority actions set out in this document and the revisions
to the rating system which, we hope, will assist in implementing those
priority actions. I think it is important for you to know what to expect
from us and what we are trying to accomplish.
-32-
-------
NEPA/CEO/F.PA EVOLUTION
NEPA
established the Council on Environmental
Ouality and the requirements for all Federal
agencies to prepare F.IS's for all maior
Federal actions significantly impacting the
environment.
created by an Executive Reorganization Plan
designed to consolidate a number of Federal
environmental responsibilities into a single
agency.
/•
reauires the Administrator of EPA to review
and comment in writing on the environmental
impact of any legislation, regulations, project
or other ma.ior Federal action proposed by
another Federal agency.
for carrying out the requirements of NFPA
issued.
JANUARY 1, 1070
EPA
SECTION 309
(of the
Clean Air
Act)
CEO GUIDANCE
309 GUIDANCE
MANUAL
CEO/EPA MOA
CEO REGULATION.^, - promulgated to implement the NEPA
requirements consistently throughout the
Federal agencies.
DECEMBER 2, 1970
DECEMBER 31, 1Q70
for carrying out EPA's environmental review
responsibilities was issued.
formally establishing EPA's procedures for
carrying out its environmental review
responsibilities was published.
transferring the responsibility for operation
of the CEO EIS filing system over to EPA was
signed .
APRIL, 1073
(revised) August 1973
1072
MARCH 1, 1975
DECEMBER, 1Q77
NOVEMBER 20, 1978
CEO GUIDANCE
(SCOPING)
CEO GUIDANCE
(40 MOST ASKED
OUESTIONS)
309 MANUAL
REVISED
published to further define the scoping
process and Federal agencies' responsi-
bilities to participate in this process.
published to provide answers to commonly
asked questions regarding the CEO Regs
and administration of the NEPA process.
was conducted in order to: place EPA's
environmental review emphasis on project
impacts rather than adequacy of information;
further decentralize EPA's review to the
Regional level; increase early interagency
coordination: and revise the rating system
to provide flexibility in assigning of
ratings that do not quite reach the level
of potential referral.
MARCH, 1081
OCTOBER, 1984
Figure 1
-------
For the record, the complete title and reference to our guidance manual
is Policy and Procedures for the Review of Federal Actions Impacting
the Environment, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of External
Affairs, Office of Federal Activities, Washington, D.C. 20460. Copies are
available at this conference or may be obtained from any EPA Region Office.
If all else fails you can get a copy from the Office of Federal Activities
in Washington, D.C. (phone (202) 382-5053).
Section 309 of the Clean Air Act requires the EPA Administrator to
do two things: First, he must review and comment in writing on the
environmental impact of any matter relating to the duties and responsibilities
of the Administrator. EPA carries this out by reviewing all EIS's,
numerous environmental assessments on major projects and all significant
environmentally oriented regulations. Second, if the Administrator finds
the action ""Environmentally Unsatisfactory" the act says he shall refer
the matter to the Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ). The significance
of this subsection is that it requires EPA to make a judgment on the
acceptability of the level of impacts expected.
It was this requirement by the way that lead to the EPA rating
system whereby we characterize the level of concern with potential project
impacts. Since we had to look at the impacts from the project anyway, it
seemed to us that we should be able to advise lead agencies of the degree
of concern we had with a proposed project, even if our concerns would not
lead to a referral to the CEQ. To us this was in keeping with the spirit
of both NEPA and Section 309 to provide constructive input to the proposing
agency. In fact, the CEQ regulations now state that the commenting
agencies "... may address either the adequacy of the statement or the
merits of the alternatives discussed or both."
-33-
-------
The idea of "constructive input" to the lead agency has been a
driving force in our latest guidance revision. We recognize that the
lead agency is the decisionmaker and the EPA role is one of sharing
expertise and advice on development of environmentally sound projects.
In restructuring the 309 review process to carry out the goal of constructive
input, we have concentrated on the following five priority areas:
1. Early Substantive Involvement with Lead Agencies. Everyone recognizes
that the earlier you get involved in the design of a project, the more
chance you have in impacting the outcome. On a general level the 309 guidance
emphasizes improved liaison with action agencies. The basic purpose here is
to establish a better working relationship with other agencies and, in course
of that, to obtain early warning of new actions, especially those that
could benefit from EPA input. On a project specific basis, we are trying
to increase our participation in formal coordination through scoping and,
when the project size or scope warrants it, by acting as a cooperating
agency. However, because early coordination is resource intensive, in terms
of staff time and travel dollars, we will have to prioritize cases for
early involvement and will, to the extent possible, maximum input through
phone calls, letters, electronic mail and combined meeting situations.
2. Concentration on Identification and Correction of Project Impacts.
Although it is impossible to completely separate the review of the adequacy
of an EIS from the determination of potential impacts, the concept here
is that to be constructive and save resources, the EPA review must be
oriented towards identification and suggested resolution of potential
environmental impacts rather than a general review of the "completeness"
of the document. According to this concept, EPA requests for additional
data or analyses will be related to and be commensurate with the degree
-34-
-------
of concern we have with the associated potential impact. We will no longer
be asking for further analysis on projects with which we have no
environmental concerns.
3. Consistency in Comments throughout the Process. EPA is sensitive to
the "moving target" syndrome whereby a lead agency is asked to fix one
thing at a time. The new guidance states that "Except in an usual
circumstance, the scope of review ... [on Final EIS's] . . . will be
limited to issues raised on the draft EIS that have not been resolved in
the final EIS, and any new, potentially significant impacts that have
been identified as a result of information made available after publication
of the draft EIS." This concept applies to all situations where previous
EPA comments are on record. Being human, we may sometimes miss issues the first
time around which need to be brought up on subsequent reviews. In those
cases, however, the "no surprise" rule applies and the EPA reviewer will
contact the lead agency before sending a comment letter with new issues.
4. Advanced Warning to Lead Agency of Significant EPA Concerns with the
Proposed Projects. This is the "no surprise" rule alluded to before.
The basic idea here is that we want the lead agency to know what we intend
to do and to have a chance to discuss the more significant (and probably
controversial) issues before we send our "official" letter. This advance
warning can be either by phone or by meeting depending on the degree of
concerns raised. How we intend to carry out this concept is described in
detail later on within the context of the rating system.
5. Predictable Follow-up with Lead Agency Where EPA has Significant
Concerns. The new procedures includes specific guidance which links the rating of
a project to the follow-up required by the EPA reviewer. These are
-35-
-------
minimum requirements and, hopefully, there will be more follow-up and
coordination in general than is called for here. The object of formalizing
this requirement is to let everyone know that if EPA has real heartburn
with a project, we intend to follow through to try to resolve the issue
(including escalation to the Headquarters levels if necessary). This
concept is also explained in detail later, again within the context of
the rating system.
It is our hope that full implementation of these five priority areas
will produce a better interagency relationship and, in the end, better
projects with less controversy and, therefore less wasted energy on the
process.
As I stated before, we view the rating system as the key implementing
tool for numerous parts of the EPA review process. Although we don't
want to overplay the significance of the alpha numeric rating over the
written descriptions of our comments, you should be aware that the rating
is a synthesis of our overall concern and will result in a number of
subsequent actions.
The EPA rating system has been revised with two thoughts in mind.
First, we wanted to give a better definition to the rating categories and
their application. The "old" system had three project ratings. They were
Lack of Objections (LO), Environmental Reservations (ER) and Environmentally
Unsatisfactory (EU). We found that the ER category was too broad and did
not always accurately reflect EPA's level of concern. We have, therefore
divided the ER category into two categories; Environmental Concerns (EC)
and Environmental Objections (EO). Second, we wanted to link the adequacy
rating to the project rating and link the overall rating to a requirement
for follow-up coordination. In this may we hope the rating system will be
"action" forcing.
-36-
-------
Figure 2 shows a schematic of the old and revised rating systems.
This depicts the range of impacts now covered after dividing the old "ER"
category into "EC" and "EO" category and making the "3" category more
stringent. The definitions of the new rating categories are shown in
Figure 3. Instead of reading these descriptions verbatim, I will just
describe the important differences between the old and revised system.
1. If EPA has no environmental objections to a project (LO rating)
no document adequacy rating will be assigned and no substantive revision
will be requested.
2. The old "ER, Environmental Reservation" category has been divided
into "EC, Environmental Concerns," and "EO, Environmental Objections."
The "EC" bating means that no "significant" potential impacts have been
identified by EPA but the level of impacts could be reduced by application
of mitigation measures or minor project modifications. The "EO" rating
means that EPA believes the proposed action will have significant.environmental
impacts and should, therefore, be modified.
3. If an "EO" rating is given, the EPA reviewer will inform the
proposing agency prior to sending the letter that EPA has significant
problems with the project. After the letter is received the EPA reviewing
office is required to try and meet with the action agency to work out the
problems. If the EPA reviewing office continues to have significant
project concerns after meeting with the action agency, EPA headquarters
officials may become involved to assist in resolving the issue at the
Headquarters level of the action agency.
-37-
-------
EPft RftTING SYSTEM
PROJECT
NEW OLD
EU
EO
EU
ER
EC
US.
NEW OLD
LO
LO
Figure 2
-------
SUMMARY OF RATING DEFINITIONS
AND FOLLOW-UP ACTION*
Environmental Impact of the Action
L0--Lack of Objections
The EPA review has not identified any potential environmental impacts
requiring substantive changes to the proposal. The review may have disclosed
opportunities for application of mitigation measures that could be
accomplished with no more than minor changes to the proposal.
EC—Environmental Concerns
The EPA review has identified environmental impacts that should be avoided in
order to fully protect the environment. Corrective measures may require
changes to the preferred alternative or application of mitigation measures
that can reduce the environmental impact. EPA would like to work with the
lead agency to reduce these impacts.
EO—Environmental Objections
The'EPA review has identified significant environmental impacts that must be
avoided in order to provide adequate protection for the environment. Corrective
measures may require substantial changes to the preferred alterna tive or
consideration of -some other project alternative (including the no action
alternative or a new alternative). EPA intends to work with the lead
agency to reduce these impacts.
EU--Environmentally Unsatisfactory
The EPA review has identified adverse environmental impacts that are of
sufficient magnitude that they are unsatisfactory from the standpoint of
public health or welfare or environmental quality. EPA intends to work with
the lead agency to reduce these impacts. If the potential unsatisfactory
impacts are not corrected at the final EIS stage, this proposal will be
recommended for referral to the CEQ.
Adequacy of the Impact Statement
Category l--Adequate
EPA believes the draft EIS adequately sets forth the environmental impact(s)
of the preferred alternative and those of the alternatives reasonably avail
able to the project or action. No further analysis or data collection is
necessary, but the reviewer may suggest the addition of clarifying language or
information.
Category 2—Insufficient Information
The draft EIS does not contain sufficient information for EPA to fully assess
environmental impacts, that should be avoided in order to fully protect the
environment, or the EPA reviewer has identified new reasonably available
alternatives that are within the spectrum of alternatives analyzed in the
draft EIS, which could reduce the environmental impacts of the action. The
identified additional information, data, analyses, or discussion should be
included in the final EIS.
Category 3--Inadequate
EPA does not believe that the draft EIS adequately assesses potentially
significant environmental impacts of the action, or the EPA reviewer has
identified new, reasonably available alternatives that are outside of the
spectrum of alternatives analyzed in the draft EIS, which should be analyzed
in order to reduce the potentially significant environmental impacts. EPA
believes that the identified additional information, data, analyses, or
discussions are of such a magnitude that they should have full public review
at a draft stage. EPA does not believe that the draft EIS is adequate for the
purposes of the NEPA and/or Section 309 review, and thus should be formally
revised an*d made available for public comment in a supplemental or revised
draft EIS. On the basis of the potential significant impacts involved, this
proposal could be a candidate for referral to the CEQ.
*From EPA Manual 1640 Policy and Procedures for the Review of Federal Actions
Impacting the Environment.
Figure 3
-------
4. If an "ED" rating is assigned to the project the EPA reviewing
office must meet with action agency prior to sending the letter. The
purpose of such a meeting is to insure a mutual understanding of the
issues and concerns. In addition to the "no surprise" aspect of this
policy, it ensures that the EPA facts are correct before EPA goes public
with critical comments. In addition, it is useful for EPA to know of any
ongoing actions that might resolve the EPA concerns. If such actions are
underway the EPA may add this information to the letter. It is important
to note, however, that the comment letter itself and the assigned rating
are not subject to negotiation and will not be changed on the basis of
the meeting unless errors are discovered in EPA's understanding of the
issues.
5. The "2" rating cannot be assigned (that is additional data
should not be requested) unless project impacts have been identified.
(An assigned rating of "EC" or greater.)
6. The "3" rating has been changed to mean that it is EPA's
belief that there are such serious problems with the DEIS that it should
be revised and resubmitted for comment. The "3" rating cannot be assigned
unless the reviewing official believes that the proposed project will
result in significant environmental impacts. In general, this means an
"EO" or "EU" rating will also be assigned. If, however, an apparently important
analysis is so deficient that no conclusions on project impacts can be
made, the "3" rating can be used by itself.
-38-
-------
Figure 4 shows the possible combination of project input and document
adequacy ratings and the type of follow-up that is required for a given
rating. Again these are minimum coordination requirements. Our hope is
that improved liaison will make such coordination a matter of course.
That covers the major initiatives we are taking to improve our
contribution to improving the NEPA based project design process. But I
want to leave you with the thought that coordination is a two way street —-
we all need to work at improving the information exchanges and coordination
between our agencies. We just completed a study of the 50 most recent
ER, EU, and 3 rated draft EIS's. We looked at the final EIS's related to
these drafts to see how our comments were responded to. Figure 5 shows
the results of that study. We found that about 62% of our specific comments
resulted in "no change" to the EIS. The final EIS in these cases either
ignored our comments or referred us back to existing text! My conclusion
is that either we didn't know that we were talking about, didn't say it well,
or the lead agency's were stonewalling us. In any case 62% of this- type
of review effort is to much energy to waste. We are pledged to tighten
up our act and are asking you to loosen up the stonewalls.
Thank you
-39-
-------
RATING COMB I NAT IONS/FOLLOW-UP
CATEGORY
LO
EC-1,EC-S
EO-1, EO-2
EU-l,EU-£, EU-3, 3
EO-3
LEAD AGENCY
PRE-NQTIFICATION
NONE
NONE
PHONE CALL
MEETING
FOLLOW-UP ON DRAFT
EIS COMMENT LETTER
NONE
PHONE CALL
MEETING
MEETING
PURPOSE OF MEETING
- TO DESCRIBE THE SPECIFIC EPA CONCERNS AND DISCUSS WAYS TO
RESOLVE THOSE CONCERNS.
- TO ENSURE THAT THE EPA REVIEW HAS CORRECTLY INTERPRETED THE
PROPOSAL ftND SUPPORTING INFORMATION.
- TO BECOME ftWARE OF ftNY ONGOING LEAD OGENCY ACTIONS THAT
MIGHT RESOLVE THE EPfi CONCERNS.
CONDITIONS OF MEETING
- THE EPfi COMMENT LETTER ITSELF fiND THE fiSSIGNED RftTING ORE
NOT SUBJECT TO NEGOTIATION AND SHOULD NOT BE CHANGED ON THE
BASIS OF THE MEETING UNLESS ERRORS ARE DISCOVERED IN EPA'5
UNDERSTANDING OF THE ISSUES.
- EPA MAY ADD IN THE LETTER AN ACKNOWLEDGMENT OF ANY RELEVANT
NEW LEAD AGENCY ACTIVITIES THAT COULD RESOLVE THE EPA
CONCERNS.
Figure 4
-------
AGENCY RESPONSE TO EPA COMMENTS
CO
UJ
o
a.
UJ
o
.X"
70;
68
58
48
3@
28
10
CHANGED EIS
NO CHANGE
DISAGREED
Figure 5
-------
GEORGE D. PENCE
Born, April 9, 1940, Fort Bragg, North Carolina
Bachelor of Science in Civil Engineering from Carnegie Institute
of Technology, June 1962.
Master of Science and Environmental Engineering from Rutgers,
the State University, June 1963.
Commissioned Officer in the U.S. Public Health Service from
1963 until 1966; converted to Civil Service and transferred
into EPA on its inception in 1970.
August 1971, until December 1982, carried out broad responsi-
bilities as Chief of a number of program branches in EPA's
Region III Office.
January 1983, to present, Professional Staff for the Merchant
Marine and Fisheries Committee specializing in fish and wildife
conservation and environmental issues.
-40-
-------
HOUSE ACTIVITIES THAT MAY IMPACT ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW By
George D. Pence
Good Morning, Ladies and Gentlemen. I am pleased to be here
for the Eighth Annual Environmental Review Conference.
I must admit that one week ago I feared that the studied and
deliberate pace of the Congress would preclude my attendance,
but the siren song of election year campaigning won out and
the 98th Congress ended last Friday.
I would like to take this opportunity to review for you past
and potential legislation within the jurisdiction of the
Merchant Marine and Fisheries Committee which may impact on
the environmental review process.
NATIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY ACT
First, the core legislation for environmental review in the
United States is embodied in the National Environmental Policy
Act (NEPA) first passed in 1969 and its companion, the
Environmental Quality Improvement Act. NEPA contains a
permanent authorization of $1 million per year and therefore
is not .subject to scheduled periodic review by the Congress.
The Environmental Quality Improvement Act, however, was
reauthorized at the end of this past session of Congress for
Fiscal Years 1985 and 1986, at a level of $480,000 per year,
to provide for the professional and administrative staff and
support for the Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ).
Combined with the $1 million per year contained in NEPA, a
total of almost $1.5 million would be available, if appro-
priated, which we believe to be a reasonable level of funding
given the past history of appropriations.
CEQ continues to be the subject of ambivalent feelings in the
Congress, and apparently in the Administration as well. As
is typical of many of our environmental programs, there are
strong detractors and strong supporters — and relatively few
who hold a middle ground position. In the past Congress, the
detractors of CEQ once again prevailed in the appropriations
process — providing only $750,000 for Fiscal Year 1985 to
carry out their missions. This was despite an effort,
contained in the amendments to the Environmental Quality
Improvement Act, to address some of the criticisms which have
been leveled regarding the lack of control over study and
program funding. The Act establishes a management fund,
subject to regulations, which would provide the necessary
accountability to both OMB and the Congress.
-41-
-------
However, I do not see, because of the existing ambivalence,
any attempt to either weaken or strengthen the statutory
authorities of NEPA. There is concern on both sides that if
attempts were made to amend the basic Act, the results might
be unsatisfactory. Those who would seek to weaken NEPA fear
that the proponents could, in fact, strengthen it in some way
and vice versa.
In general, I believe that CEQ's most recent set of regulations
and the guidelines have gone a long way towards making the
process work more efficiently and more fairly, and have served
to lower the level of concern in both camps.
That is not to say, however, that no attention is being paid
to the operations and policies of the Council. Of particular
concern is the development of reasonable and workable worstcase
analysis methodologies — which is the subject of the workshop
today chaired by Dinah Bear — and the ongoing development of
risk assessment procedures.
COASTAL BARRIER RESOURCES
The Coastal Barrier Resources Act, affectionately known as
COBRA, passed in 1982 with the intent to discourage develop-
ment of designated coastal barrier islands on the Atlantic
and Gulf coasts by restricting future federal expenditures
and financial assistance. In the coming year, the Secretary
of the Interior is required to prepare, and submit to Congress,
a report which will include recommendations for the conserva-
tion of fish, wildlife, and other natural resources of the
system; recommendations for additions to, or deletions from,
the System; and an analysis of the effect, if any, that
general revenue sharing grants have had on undeveloped coastal
barriers. I have not had the pleasure of working on this
legislation yet but it promises to be extremely interesting.
Interior will have a number of recommendations for additions
to the system and there are, understandably, a number of
proposals for deletion by those who have specific development
projects in mind.
The Legislation originally resulted from a rather peculiar
coalition of liberal environmental interest groups and
conservatives interested in fiscal responsibility. It is
unclear at this time how these interest groups will interact
in the coming year.
-42-
-------
The period of implementation of this Act has been insufficient
to obtain an accurate assessment of its impacts. However, it
is clear that development of protected coastal barriers has
slowed down, especially due to the restrictions on federal
flood insurance. It is unclear whether this trend will
continue as the increasing pressure for development brings
private insurers into the market. The burdens of obtaining
private insurance and providing the necessary infrastructures,
such as roads, sewer, and water, will continue to slow down
the construction of single-family summer or retirement
residences, but will not have nearly as dramatic an impact on
multi-family, condominum development. Until these trends are
more fully developed, there will probably be some sentiment
in the Congress for only relatively minor changes.
ENDANGERED SPECIES ACT
The Endangered Species Act of 1973 is among the world's
strongest laws to prevent species extinction. It does so
through a variety of methods designed to bring species back
to a point where protection is no longer needed. These
include: listing as endangered or threatened; designation and
acquisition of critical habitat, harvest and trade controls;
state, federal, and international cooperation; and regulation
of federal agency activities.
Under the latter provisions, such agencies are required to
use their authorities to conserve endangered and threatened
species and to ensure that their actions do not jeopardize
the continued existence of a listed species or destroy or
adversely modify critical habitats. This requirement is
carried out through interagency consultation which is intended
to identify reasonable development alternatives that do not
conflict with species conservation.
The Endangered Species Act was last reauthorized in 1982
through Fiscal Year 1985. Therefore, this legislation will
be a major piece of our legislative agenda for the coming
year. However, the 1982 amendments contained a number of
provisions to improve the implementation of the listing and
consultation processes which seem, so far, to have eliminated
much of the controversy. At the present time, therefore, we
do not have any indication that major revisions will be
necessary.
-43-
-------
The 1982 amendments also included a provision which allows
for long-term permitting decisions, where appropriate, if
carried out under a comprehensive conservation plan developed
jointly between the appropriate federal wildlife agency, the
private sector, and state or local government agencies. I
will discuss this mechanism later today in connection with
a legislative proposal regarding the Fish and Wildlife
Coordination Act.
WETLANDS LEGISLATION
The Clean Water Act, despite frantic activity in both the
House and Senate, was not amended during the 98th Congress.
Therefore, the next session of Congress should see a renewal
of that activity. Because Section 404, dealing with dredge
and fill permitting, is one of those issues in which the
Congress exhibits extreme schizophrenia, the net effect was
no amendments in the past Congress dealing with that Section.
It seems likely, although no promises can be given, that
future considerations of the Clean Water Act will also, once
again, avoid making any changes.
While not impacting directly on the environmental review pro-
cess, there are two pieces of legislation dealing with the
protection of wetlands which I believe are of interest. The
first, the Emergency Wetlands Resources Act, was introduced
in the House of Representatives by the late Congressman Edwin
B. Forsythe of New Jersey and in the Senate by Senator John
Chafee. This legislation would provide for a major federal/
state cooperative acquisition effort with an authorization of
$75 million per year for 10 years. This acquisition would be
in addition to the acquisition programs already in place for
waterfowl habitat funded by the receipts from the Duck Stamp
and the Wetlands Loan Act.
The bill also included a requirement for the Secretary of the
Interior to study the causes of wetlands loss throughout the
United States, including, in particular, the contribution of
federal assistance and federal programs. Early discussion of
the bill considered the elimination of one or more federal
programs which would have a generally beneficial effect on
the rate of wetlands loss. However, the notable lack of
information regarding not only the environmental benefits to
be attained by eliminating or restricting federal expenditures
-44-
-------
or financial assistance, but the economic impacts, including
local impacts on property values and community economic bases,
precluded a reasonable assessment of which programs should be
modified and which should be allowed to remain. Therefore,
the Merchant Marine and Fisheries Committee concluded that
the compilation of data necessary for an informed and reason-
able decision concerning other appropriate mechanisms for
achieving the conservation goals was a necessary prerequisite
to moving forward.
It was anticipated that the study would culminate in reason-
able recommendations for the conservation of wetlands resources
based on the evaluation and comparison of all of the management
alternatives identified during the study, as well as such
other alternatives which may be available to state and local
governments — and to the private sector — if sufficient
incentives were provided. These recommendations would also
include appropriate statutory changes as well as recommenda-
tions for regulatory change and administrative initiatives.
I am pleased that despite the failure of this legislation to
pass, the Fish and Wildlife Service has included this study
in their budget proposals for Fiscal Year 1985.
The legislation had unusually broad support. Unfortunately,
the ad'dition of a controversial rider regarding the construc-
tion of channel stabilization jetties at Oregon Inlet on the
Outer Banks of North Carolina precluded passage of the bill
late in the session. It is anticipated that the bill in
substantially identical form will be subject to early con-
sideration during the 99th Congress.
It seems logical that the overall national program for wet-
lands protection should include not only regulation and ac-
quisition, but incentives for private protection of privately
held wetlands areas. Therefore, Chairman John Breaux of
Louisiana introduced a bill which would characterize valuable
habitat types, including wetlands, and provide for each
various tax inventives to encourage the private protection of
these areas. Hearings held on this bill were very encouraging
and generated significant interest. It is anticipated that
this legislation will be revised for introduction next year.
There is no doubt that any tax benefit proposals will face
a long and arduous journey given the extreme distaste which
the Ways and Means Committee holds for legislation which they
believe will confuse the tax codes and create new loopholes.
However, I am hopeful that sufficient interest will be
generated to pass at least some of these proposals.
-45-
-------
FISH AND WILOLIFE COORDINATION ACT
I have saved the Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act as the
last item on our legislative menu since the discussion of
proposed amendments embodies several recommendations which
I believe are more generic in nature and apply to the
environmental review process in general.
The Coordination Act, first enacted by Congress in 1934, was
one of the earliest federal environmental statutes and
represents the first attempt to integrate fish and wildlife
conservation measures into the Federal Government's water
resources planning activities. As amended in 1946, the Act
requires federal agencies to administer projects modifying
water resources to take fish and wildlife resources into
consideration before proceeding. Whenever any agency pro-
poses such a project or permit, it must consult with the Fish
and Wildlife Service (NMFS), and the fish and wildife agency
of the state in which the project is to be constructed.
After consultation, the fish and wildlife agencies may submit
a report to the agency responsible for the project, detailing
the impacts on wildife and fisheries and may make recommenda-
tions for alternative actions or mitigation measures.
H.R. 5755 was introduced by Chairman Breaux and Congressman
Don Young of Alaska based on a concept first proposed during
the 98th Congress by Congressman Edwin Forsythe. The legis-
lation passed the house relatively late in the session, and
the Senate was unable, or unwilling, to take it up in the
crush of last minute legislation.
In the nature of legislative bookkeeping, the amendment
codifies reorganization Plan No. 4 which divided the res-
ponsibilities for the fish and wildlife resources between
the National Marine Fisheries Service of the Department of
Commerce and the Fish and Wildlife Service of the Department
of the Interior. This clarification, while not legally
necessary, would preclude the argument that NMFS has no
standing in law to comment on water resources projects.
Secondly, in an effort to facilitate participation by the FWS
and NMFS in carrying out their responsibilities under the
Act, the provision which allows for transfer of necessary
study funds from the action agencies to the Fish and Wildlife
Service and National Marine Fisheries Service was amended to
make such transfer mandatory.
-46-
-------
The term "mitigation" is defined in a manner consistent with
the definition contained in CEQ's most recent regulations.
This would be the first time that a definition for "mitigation"
would be included in statute. The term also specifically
includes the concept of mitigation measures occurring offsite
as well as on-site where appropriate.
The two major provisions contained in H.R. 5155, I believe,
are directly applicable to the Federal Government's environ-
mental review process although by nature of the Act itself
the legislation, if passed, would only have applied to FWS
and NMFS.
The first deals with a lack of information regarding the
effectiveness of implemented recommendations and compliance
with the terms of permits granted for water development pro-
jects. In 1982, a study by the NMFS Southeast Region showed
that while NMFS was effective in getting recommendations
incorporated as terms in permits, the rate of non-compliance
with those terms was as high as 18 percent. A follow-up study
showed that 25 percent of the surveyed projects were not in
compliance with the terms of the permit. In response to
questions from Congressman Forsythe in 1983, the Director of
Civil Works of the Corps of Engineers wrote that, "During the
last few years, more attention has been given to the process
by which balanced, timely decisions are rendered on permit
applications. Enforcement and surveillance have consequently
not been to the forefront of the program." The Director went
on to say, "Exact data is not available; however, non-compliance
has not been represented as a major problem by Corps Districts."
Inquiries to the other agencies involved also reveal a nearly
complete lack of follow-up on the effectiveness of the incor-
porated recommendations and a lack of monitoring of the
permittees' work to ensure compliance. In other words, no one
is able to estimate, on a national basis, how many recommen-
dations were included in the project requirements and, in
fact, complied with; nor is anyone able to estimate if those
recoramendatons which were implemented had the desired effect
on environmental resources or, indeed, if they were necessary
at all.
Lack of effective and speedy compliance monitoring and en-
forcement can only serve to discourage those who depend upon
the Federal Government to protect the nation's valuable
natural resources. Additionally, lack of effective enforce-
ment works to the detriment of responsible permit applicants
by undercutting their ability to sell the need for compliance
to funding decision makers.
-47-
-------
On the other hand, the availability of sound data regarding
the effectiveness of permit recommendations to achieve the
desired effect is absolutely vital to forestall criticism re-
garding the need for implementation of those recommendations.
Until we can show that recommended permit conditions will in
fact achieve their stated goals — and no more — through
reasonable and appropriate mitigation or alternative
implementation, the program will continue to fall prey to
cries of overzealousness.
Therefore, in the proposed amendments to the Fish and Wildlife
Coordination Act, the responsible federal commenting agencies
are required to prepare a listing, by categories, of the
projects reviewed and those for which recommendations were
made. The commenting agencies would then select a statistically
significant sample of project recommendations and, following
review by the action agencies regarding compliance with those
recommendations, would evaluate the results and effectiveness
of such compliance. The Fish and Wildlife Service and National
Marine Fisheries Service would be required to report to
Congress every two years regarding the results of the studies.
I believe that the implementation of this kind of follow-up
study will not only add to the credibility of the program,
but will result in significant technical and administrative
improvements in the process.
Finally, the amendment included provisions that the Secretaries
of Interior and Commerce may participate with appropriate
federal, state, and local agencies and with private organiza-
tions or entities, in the preparation of plans which comply
with existing law and which promote the conservation or
enhancement of wildlife and wildlife habitat and the recon-
ciliation of conservation goals with other objectives and
uses. Further, with respect to each such plan, the Secretary
may enter into contractual agreements that provide assurances,
again consistent with law, regarding the value and extent of
the habitat to be conserved or enhanced, the mitigation to be
provided for the affected wildlife resources, and the nature
and extent of habitat modifications to be permitted.
While it can be, and has been, argued that the federal agencies
already have the authority to participate in such planning
and make such agreements, I believe that inclusion of specific
language in statute will avoid uncertainty at Headquarters
and Regional levels.
-48-
-------
This concept grows out of the conservation plan language
contained in the Endangered Species Act Amendments of 1982
which I previously mentioned. The provision in the Endangered
Species Act is modeled after a habitat conservation plan that
had been developed by three Northern California cities, the
County of San Mateo, and private landowners and developers to
provide for the conservation of the habitat of three endangered
species of butterfly within the San Bruno Mountain area of
San Mateo County. The terms of that agreement required a
unique partnership between the public and private sectors in
the interest of species and habitat conservation. Broad
areas were set aside for conservation, and funding plans were
implemented to ensure continued operations.
It is recognized that significant development projects, such
as port development, often take many years to complete and
permit applicants may need long-term permits or many serially
issued permits. In this situation, and in order to provide
sufficient incentives for the private sector to participate
in the development of such long-term conservation plans,
plans which may involve the expenditure of hundreds of
thousands, if not millions, of dollars, adequate assurances
must be made to the financial and development communities
that a- reasonable and implementable permit processing mecha-
nism can be made available for the life of the project.
With a specific short-term project, a developer may negotiate
and obtain the necessary permits and be relatively certain
that things will not change by the time the development is
completed. On the other hand, if the project is multi-phased
and extends over a long period of time, the developer cannot
be assured that the rules will remain the same, particularly
where there are a number of governmental agencies involved or
when new agencies are created to address previously unrecog-
nized concerns.
Conversely, the environmental agencies and environmental
interest groups are concerned that in addressing a single
project the interest of the ecosystem, or the region on the
whole, are often overlooked because the geographical bound-
aries of the project may not be broad enough. Cumulative
impacts may be overlooked because the projects -re considered
in permits issued on a piecemeal basis. In allowing a single
project portion of an overall development plan to proceed,
they view the resource at risk because they are not assured
that the remainder of the ecosystem or resource will be pro-
tected.
-49-
-------
The net result is that a confrontational mentality between
development and conservation interests may work to the long-
term detriment of all interests. The habitat is slowly lost,
piece by piece, as the demands for facilities become over-
whelming and the costs of development become greater and
greater. Developers complain about the intransigence of the
conservationists, and the conservationists point to the
ruthlessness of the developers.
It should be emphasized that the need for assurances extends
to all interests — assurances for the developer that his
rights to develop, once obtained, will not be further unrea-
sonably impeded by additional layers of governmental regula-
tion; and assurances to conservationists that the loss of
resources thorough development will be finite, not continual,
and that programs for species and habitat enhancement and
environmental protection will be properly implemented and not
mere empty promises.
I believe one reason why there have been so few agreements is
that there has been some question as to the extent of the
authority of federal agencies to enter into long-term agree-
ments that may impair, in effect, an agency's subsequent
ability to regulate private sector activities. As a result,
there is a general reluctance to provide such commitments.
In turn, there has been a reluctance on the part of some
developers and local agencies to rely on federal agency com-
mitments, even those in contractual form, without further
legislative authority. In fact, there is no specific language
in any of the three major federal statutes regarding the pro-
tection of the environment which expressly provides for such
agreements other than the recent amendment to the Endangered
Species Act.
Mitigation banks have been discussed for several years, but
to my knowledge there are only two in actual operation today.
One is the program contemplated by the Congress in legislation
establishing the Tensas National Wildlife Refuge in Lousiana.
The other is the recently announced Tenneco Mitigation Bank,
also in Louisiana. I understand that there have been problems
in the implementation of the Tensas Mitigation Bank. It is
much too early to know whether the Tenneco agreement will
succeed, but I note, for example, that the Corps of Engineers
is not a signatory to the Tenneco Memorandum of Understanding.
-50-
-------
However, mitigation banks are only one example of the form
which these agreements might take. Others would include
habitat conservation plans which focus on a discrete habitat,
such as the San Bruno Mountain or a specific wetland system;
species oriented programs which provide for the conservation
of a single species throughout its range in relation to
competing activities; or areawide plans for ports or large
land holdings.
It is clear that not all, or even most, of the permitting
decisions made in the United States would be amenable to
longterm agreements. Obviously this mechanism would not
apply to the bulk of minor 404 permit applications. However,
for longterm, large-scale development projects the availability
of this type of cooperative, comprehensive mechanism can only
be beneficial.
The legislative proposal which we considered during the last
Congress did not specify the constraints which should or
would be placed on such agreements. However, it is clear
that such agreements cannot abrogate the federal agencies'
responsibilities to carry out their regulatory procedures.
It is likewise clear that the implementation of a meaningful
agreement will depend upon the availability of appropriate
accounting procedures such as the Fish and Wildlife Service's
Habitat Evaluation Procedure. Finally, any agreement must
contain provisions which will allow for the consideration of
unforeseen circumstances which may occur during the life of
the agreement.
The amendments to the Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act will
be reintroduced during the next Congress and it is hoped that
sufficient time will be available for full consideration in
the Senate as well as the House of Representatives.
Nevertheless, I believe that conflict resolution through the
use of long-term agreements where appropriate can, and should
be, implemented now by all of the federal agencies involved
-including the action agencies — in cooperation with state,
local, and private entities.
I would like to once again thank the sponsors of this conference
and you for your interest.
-51-
-------
JAMES S. STOKES
James S. Stokes is a partner in the Atlanta law firm
of Alston & Bird. He is the firm's lead environmental attorney.
Mr. Stokes has extensive experience in all aspects of
environmental regulation and litigation, including
environmental impact statements and air and water quality
matters. He has been heavily involved in hazardous waste
management activities under RCRA and in clean-up actions for a
number of hazardous waste sites in Georgia and around the
country, representing both site owners and generators of
waste. Clients with environmental concerns which he has
assisted include manufacturers of chemicals, steel, lead,
appliances, flexible packaging and various other products,
timber and mining interests, the major hazardous waste clean-up
company in the Southeast, real estate developers, and various
governmental and other public authorities.
He has written and spoken extensively in the
environmental area and served as Chairman of the State Bar of
Georgia's Environmental Law Section from 1979-1982. He serves
as environmental legal counsel to the Business Council of
Georgia, the trade association for business and industrial
interests in the State. He is one of Georgia's representatives
on the EPA Region IV Business/ Industry Council and serves on
the Georgia Industrial Developers' Association Hazardous Waste
Committee. He also serves as the Vice Chairman of the Atlanta
Chamber of Commerce Water Resources Task Force.
Mr. Stokes earned his bachelor of arts degree from
Davidson College in 1966, graduating Phi Beta Kappa. He
completed Yale Law School in 1969. After graduation, he served
as an Assistant to the General Counsel of the U. S. Army where
he was involved in numerous environmental matters relating
primarily to the Army Corps of Engineers permitting programs.
Mr. Stokes presently serves as Chairman of the City of
Atlanta's Zoning Review Board.
-52-
-------
LIVING WITH ENVIRONMENTAL REGULATION—
A BUSINESS CHALLENGE
JAMES S. STOKES
ALSTON & BIRD
Many responsible companies which are committed to
environmental compliance too frequently encounter roadblocks
presented by EPA and State regulatory agencies. The roadblocks
are often not intentionally erected. However, they do exist
and can be avoided.
My presentation addresses three such roadblocks:
(1) Lack of cooperation by EPA and State
environmental agencies to present a consistent set of
requirements for industry.
(2) Lack of consistency from one EPA region to
another and lack of consistency in treatment of competitors.
(3) Presentation of a moving target for industry
compliance, with there being no assurance that the required
method or time of compliance will not be changed after an
industry has already made substantial financial and other
commitments to an agreed-upon compliance program.
CASE HISTORIES
Before discussing these roadblocks, I want to describe
three case histories which illustrate them. While the case
histories concern compliance with EPA's limitations on volatile
-53-
-------
organic compound ("VOC"), or hydrocarbon, emissions, they could
just as easily involve the environmental review process or
other environmental regulatory activities.
By way of background, VOC's in the atmosphere are
involved in highly complex and not fully understood reactions
which produce ozone. As a general matter, compliance with
various VOC emission standards was required either at the end
of 1982 or 1983. Such compliance is usually achieved either by
incineration of VOC emissions or by utilizing substantially
reduced amounts of volatile solvents in surface coatings, ink
and other materials producing VOC emissions. This approach is
referred to as "low solvent technology."
In 1978-1979, EPA determined that industry should be
provided three years beyond the regulatory compliance date to
develop low solvent technology in order to comply with VOC
emission limitations. In making this decision, EPA recognized
that:
In the long run, use of [low solvent] technology
is preferable to incineration from the point of
view of reliability and maintenance of controls,
as well as for purposes of energy consumption.
45 Fed. Reg. 80824, 80825 (Dec. 8, 1980).
As I will discuss, EPA changed this policy in mid to
late 1983, with major impacts upon regulated industries.
The three case histories deal with companies in
different regions and different States, whose identity is not
-54-
-------
important. To help distinguish these situations, I have given
each of them a name, with the first being the "litigation case."
Litigation Case
In 1981, the Company involved was issued a State order
extending the compliance time for three years through the end
of 1985. This extension was granted to provide time to develop
low solvent technology. EPA was notified of this order, but
the order was never submitted for EPA approval as an amendment
to the State Implementation Plan ("SIP").
However, a State order issued about the same time
providing a similar extension to another company in the same
county was submitted to EPA and was approved as an SIP revision.
In mid-1983, EPA issued to the Company a Notice of
Violation stating that the Company was exceeding the VOC
emission limitation. Even though the State order provided for
compliance at the end of 1985, the EPA regional office wanted
compliance by September 30, 1984, fifteen months before the
State deadline. The EPA regional office and the State agency
were at such loggerheads that they were unable to work together
to explore a resolution.
Because of the state of the art, the Company knew that
it could not implement low solvent technology in order to
comply by September 30, 1984. The only alternative was
-55-
-------
installation of an incineration system, and the Company was
committed to achieving compliance by low solvent technology.
When the Company would not agree to EPA's demands, the
Government filed suit, and the litigation is in progress.
Company Mediation Case
As with the litigation case, the Company in this case
was issued a State order extending the compliance time through
the end of 1985. Also as with the litigation case, this order
was never submitted to EPA for approval as an amendment to the
SIP.
In early 1984, EPA issued to the Company a Notice of
Violation. In response to this Notice, the Company met with
representatives of both the EPA regional office and the State
environmental agency. At this meeting, the Company agreed to
make major submissions concerning its low solvent developments
as well as a proposed compliance schedule, both of which the
Company did.
For the next two months, the Company heard nothing
until it received a letter from EPA asking for information
concerning the level of its VOC emissions. Upon inquiring, the
Company learned that its response to this letter would provide
the basis for an enforcement action if some resolution were not
achieved.
-5o-
-------
Knowing about situations similar to the litigation
case I have just discussed, the Company contacted both EPA and
the State agency and, on its own motion, worked with them to
bring about a resolution. The Company's efforts resulted in at
least some cooperation between EPA and the State agency where
there had been little. This cooperation has resulted in a
proposed State order extending the compliance date through the
end of 1985 which is likely to be approved by the State and EPA,
EPA-State Cooperation Case
In mid-1982, the State involved approved a compliance
extension for this Company through the end of 1987. At the
public hearing held prior to this approval, EPA stated that
such an extension was approvable.
However, in mid-1983, EPA notified the State that it
would be unable to approve the extension and required a
schedule providing for compliance by the end of 1986.
Since receiving this information, the Company has
worked with the State agency to develop a compliance schedule,
and the State agency has worked with EPA to obtain its
approval. The process has gone smoothly, largely because EPA
and the State have a good working relationship.
-57-
-------
-------
THE THREE ROADBLOCKS TO COMPLIANCE
The facts of these three cases provide a revealing
commentary on the three roadblocks I mentioned at the beginning
of this presentation.
Lack of EPA-State Cooperation
EPA attempts to delegate most programs to the States
to administer, with EPA remaining in an oversight posture. In
practice, such delegation often does not actually occur either
because EPA is not willing to release its authority or because
the State does not carry out its responsibilities, due to
funding or other reasons. EPA frequently appears to be
concerned that the States will not be as stringent in their
enforcement efforts as is EPA.
All too often, EPA regional offices and States simply
do not get along. The "litigation case" and "company mediation
case" are clear examples of this. Should a company have to
mediate between EPA and the State agency? Obviously not, but
the company must do so in its own self-interest in order to
achieve a resolution.
The fact is that when an EPA regional office and a
state agency do not get along, the big loser is going to be the
company involved in a regulatory action before EPA and the
State. On occasion, these disagreements are insoluble as in
the "litigation case."
-58-
-------
From my standpoint as a lawyer representing industry,
explaining to company officials the EPA-State disagreements is
very difficult. It is not convincing to tell a company
official that these disagreements are just a fact of regulatory
life. The disagreements should be avoidable in most cases and
certainly should not have to be resolved by the company
involved. Nevertheless, the company often has no choice but to
resolve the EPA-State dispute in order to obtain the permit or
approval to which it is entitled.
The examples involving VOC emissions which I have
given are only illustrative. Such disagreements appear in all
sorts of environmental regulatory activities. For example, in
the environmental review process, the situation changes little
if the agencies involved are the Corps of Engineers and EPA or
the Corps and the Fish and Wildlife Service, rather than EPA
and a State agency.
Inconsistency Among Regions and Competitors
In considering the three case histories, it is obvious
that the companies in the EPA-State cooperation case and to a
lesser extent in the company mediation case have an advantage
over the company involved in the litigation case. The
situations are all very similar, and yet three different
regions have three very different ways of handling them.
-59-
-------
Without question, the EPA-State cooperation case is the way
that the situation should be handled.
The litigation case illustrates industry's substantial
concern with EPA actions providing advantages to a competitor
or similarly situated company. If the State agency in the
litigation case had submitted to EPA the order extending
compliance time for the Company involved, as it did for a
similarly situated company, the State order would probably have
been approved as an SIP revision and there would be no
litigation. Instead, the Company now faces the expense of
litigation with the Government while the company with the
approved SIP revision continues to operate without
interference. This is not only unfair but provides the kind of
competitive advantage that EPA decisions are supposed to avoid.
Such inconsistency makes it very difficult for company
officials to comply with environmental requirements without
reservation. It also causes company officials to question the
soundness of other environmental requirements. Achieving the
goal of environmental compliance should not be so burdensome
for companies which want to comply.
The Moving Target
As long as I have been involved with environmental
regulation, a major concern of industry has been that EPA's
-60-
-------
decisions be ones on which companies can rely for a significant
period of time.
Too often, within a year or two after making what is
supposed to be a long-lasting decision, EPA changes the method
or time for compliance, or both. By then, industry has already
made substantial financial and other commitments. These either
must be modified at greater cost or must even be discarded
entirely with the company starting over. It is to avoid such
changes that Section 306(d) of the Clean Water Act provides
that a source constructed to meet all applicable standards of
performance shall not be subject to any more stringent standard
of performance during a ten-year period after construction is
completed. This avoids the moving target.
Likewise, a company granted a three-year extension of
time to develop low solvent technology in accordance with EPA's
policy should be entitled to rely on this extension even if the
State extension order was not approved by EPA. In particular,
EPA's demand in the litigation case to move the compliance date
forward by fifteen months emphasizes the moving target
problem. EPA's change in policy in mid-1983 leaves companies
in the midst of their low solvent technology development and
with little choice but to add incinerators or face enforcement
actions. The result is the very energy consumption and
reliability and maintenance problems which EPA has recognized
-61-
-------
accompany incineration. The result is also additional cost to
companies involved.
CONCLUSION
The same roadblocks that I have discussed in the VOC
compliance context also apply to the environmental review
process and all other areas of EPA regulatory activity. I am
not suggesting in any way that companies which cannot achieve
compliance because of their own recalcitrance or failure to be
informed deserve any relief. What I am suggesting is that
responsible, informed companies which are trying to meet their
environmental regulatory obligations should not have to be
faced with the obstacles posed by EPA-State disagreements,
inconsistency among regions and competitors, and moving
targets. I hope that during the course of your discussions
over the next day, you will address the three roadblocks in the
environmental review context and discuss ways in which the
roadblocks can be avoided.
-62-
-------
-------
WORKSHOPS
NOTE: No exact transcripts of the workshops were made and
the following is meant to be a reasonable represen-
tation of the comments and issues discussed at the
workshops. Each workshop was presented four times,
twice during the afternoon of October 18, and twice
during the morning of October 19.
-------
WORKSHOP A
THE WORST CASE ANALYSIS ISSUE
WHAT LIES AHEAD
Dinah Bear, Chairperson
General Counsel
Council on Environmental Quality
Washington, D.C.
John H. Elliott, Jr.
Project Manager
CEQ Annual Report and Special Projects
Council on Environmental Quality
Washington, D.C.
Severely Carrera
Environmental Coordination Specialist
U.S. Forest Service
Washington, D.C.
-------
DINAH BEAR
DINAH BEAR was born October 22, 1951, in Lynwood, California.
She received a Bachelors of Journalism degree from the University
of Missouri at Columbia, Missouri. In 1977, she graduated from
McGeorge School of Law, in Sacramento, California. She practiced
law with private firms in California and Kansas before coming to
Washington, D.C. in 1980. She served as Deputy General Counsel
of the Council on Environmental Quality from May 1981 to November
1982; Acting General Counsel from November 1982 to January 1983,
and was appointed General Counsel in January 1983.
She has been admitted to practice by the State Bar of California,
the District of Columbia Bar, and the U.S. Supreme Court. She is
a member of the Federal Bar Association and the American Bar
Association, Section on Natural Resources and the Environment.
-------
Good Morning/Afternoon! Welcome to the CEQ workshop about
the worst case analysis issue. My name is Dinah Bear, and I am
General Counsel of the Council on Environmental Quality. I have
with me, for this panel discussion, Beverly Camera,
environmental coordination specialist for the U.S. Forest
Service, and John Elliott, who is on detail to CEQ from EPA's
Senior Executive Service to help us with a number of projects.
As all of you know, one of CEQ's primary responsibilities is
oversight of the National Environmental Protection Act (NEPA).
As part of that responsibility, CEQ issued binding regulations in
1978 to implement the procedural provisions of NEPA. During the
past 3 1/2 years, the current Council has observed the
implementation of these regulations with much interest. In
general, the conclusion has been that the regulations are good
and work wel1.
There is, however, one rapidly developing area of NEPA law
which is of great concern to the Council. That is the
requirement to prepare a worst case analysis in an EIS when
information relevant to adverse impacts is essential or important
to a decision and the means of obtaining the information is
either exorbitant or unknown.
You may wonder why we chose this topic for a workshop here in
Region IV, which has, as yet, been untouched by this issue—at
least in the courts. I decided on this subject because I believe
that it is currently the area of NEPA law with the most potential
-65-
-------
for change, both within the framework of the Council and the
courts, and that the issue will emerge in Region IV in the not so
distant future.
The regulatory basis for the worst case requirement is found
at 40 C.F.R. 1502.22(b). That regulation addresses the question
of what an agency must do if it is evaluating significant adverse
effects on the human environment in an EIS and there are gaps in
relevant information or scientific uncertainty. First, the
regulation makes it clear that if this situation exists, the
agency must make it clear that such information is lacking or
that uncertainty exists.
Secondly, if the information relevant to adverse impacts is
essential to a reasoned choice among alternatives and is not
known and the overall costs of obtaining it are not exorbitant,
the agency shall include the information in the environmental
impact statement.
Finally, we come to the "worst case" requirement. If (1) the
information relevant to adverse impacts is essential to a
reasoned choice among alternatives and is not known and the
overall costs of obtaining it are exorbitant or (2) the
information relevant to adverse impacts is important to the
decision and the means to obtain it are not known (e.g., the
means for obtaining it are beyond the state of the art) the
agency shall weigh the need for the action against the risk and
severity of possible adverse impacts were the action to proceed
-66-
-------
in the face of uncertainty. If the agency proceeds, it shall
include a worst case analysis and an indication of the
probability or improbability of its occurrence.
Although this requirement did not receive much attention at
first, last year's decision in Sierra Club v. Sigler by the Fifth
Circuit Court of Appeals sparked a great deal of interest in this
requirement, and has stimulated much litigation. The Si e r r a Club
v. Sigler decision focused on an EIS prepared by the Army Corps
of Engineers for construction of a deepwater port and crude oil
distribution system in Galveston, Texas. The plaintiffs
successfully claimed that the EIS should include a worst case
analysis analyzing the effects of a total cargo loss by a
supertanker in Galveston Bay. In agreeing with the plaintiffs,
the Fifth Circuit praised t-he new CEQ worst case regulation as
one which "is sensible and addresses a widely recognized abuse by
agencies -- who previously had cloaked themselves in ignorance --
while preventing agency action". (18 ERC 1660). It also
determined that remoteness was not a criteria for when a worst
case analysis should be prepared and refuted the lower court's
concerns about the speculative nature of the worst case analysis.
"There must be," the Court said, "a base of information upon
which to project past these limits, but the projections
themselves cannot be subject to the same rigorous scrutiny other
information in th'e EIS must endure".
In Village of False Pass v. Watt, plaintiffs challenged the
Interior Department's issuance of oil and gas leases under Lease
Sale 70 for 2.7 million acres on the outer continental shelf of
-67-
-------
Alaska. The court found that the EIS lacked crucial information
on the effects of pre-exploration seismic surveys on two
endangered species of whales. The judge enjoined the lease sales
until Interior either gathered sufficient additional information
in a supplemental EIS, or, if that was not possible, prepared a
worst case analysis.
The Second Circuit Court of appeals took a different approach
to the worst case analysis requirement in the case of The City of
New York and the State of New York v. The United States
Department of Transportation and Commonwealth Edison Company.
That case involved the Department of Transportation's proposed
promulgation of rules which would govern the highway
transportation of large quantities of radioactive materials. DOT
prepared an environmental assessment for the proposed
regulations, which was followed with a Finding of No Significant
Impact. However, the environmental assessment noted that there
was one possible significant risk from the promulgation of rules
-- the risk of a serious accident with substantial leakage of
radioactive gases. DOT's risk assessment estimated the
probability of such an accident to be approximately once every
300 million years. The agency then determined that this high
degree of improbability made the preparation of a worst case
analysis and an EIS unnecessary.
The District Court ruled the environmental assessment
inadequate because DOT had insufficiently analyzed the
probability of a high-risk accident and the consequences of such
an accident. The District Court believed that DOT improperly
-68-
-------
considered the risk of the worst case insignificant because of
the low probability of its occurrence.
The Second Circuit disagreed with the lower court. In
regards to the worst case issue, the majority on the Court of
Appeals overturned the District Court's determination that DOT
was obligated to prepare an EIS. The Court specifically rejected
an automatic rule requiring preparation of an EIS for every
action that has any possibility, however remote, of causing
serious accidental injury. Such a rule would routinely
require an EIS for federal actions, since it is hard to
imagine any agency action involving people or equipment that
is not subject to some estimatable risk of causing serious
accidental injury. In this case, reasonable minds may differ
as to whether or not the gravity the "worst case" accident or
other less serious accidents, discounted by their
improbability, presents an overall risk of sufficient
significance to warrant an EIS. So long as that choice falls
within the range of reasonable dispute, an agency's informed
decision not to require an EIS is neither arbitrary nor
capricious.
The majority of the Court of Appeals emphasized the deference
courts should give to agency decisions in the environmental
field. This deference, the majority wrote, should be accorded
the agency both in terms of the method of risk assessment
employed and DOT's conclusion that promulgation of the rules
would have no significant impact on the environment.
-69-
-------
Judge Oakes, in a dissenting opinion, viewed DOT's decision
not to prepare an EIS as arbitrary and capricious. In his view,
the "worst case" scenario identified by DOT would compel
preparation of an EIS.
The greatest number of lawsuits based upon the worst case
requirement have focused on its application to the spraying of
pesticides and herbicides on Forest Service and Bureau of Land
Management lands in ,Oregon. The first case to be decided on this
issue by the Ninth Circuit, Southern Oregon Citizens Against
Toxic Sprays, Inc.. v. Clark, focused on BLM's spraying program
in forest lands in Oregon to control non-commercial vegetation
and to promote timber production. BLM filed a programmatic EIS
in 1978 to cover the spraying program for 10 years, and files
annual EA's to update the EIS. The district court concluded that
there was uncertainty regarding the use of one of the subject
herbicides, 2, 4-D, and held that the scientific uncertainty,
coupled with the potential danger to human health, required a
worst case analyses. The court determined that the uncertainty
regarding safe levels of the herbicides in question triggered the
need to prepare a worst case analysis, despite the agency's
belief that the worst case was unlikely to occur. Further, the
court found that the registration of a herbicide under FIFRA did
not excuse BLM from preparing the worst case analysis. They also
ruled that the worst case analysis was required even though the
relevant NEPA document was an environmental assessment rather
than an EIS. This summer the Justice Department, on behalf of
the Department of Interior, presented a petition to the U.S.
-70-
-------
Supreme Court asking them to hear this case. We anticipate their
decision sometime in the middle of November.
The most recent "worst case" decision also comes from the
Ninth Circuit and also deals with the spraying of herbicides on
federal land, again, in the context of an environmental
assessment. In the combined opinions of Save Our Ecosystems v.
Clark and Merrell v. Block, the Ninth Circuit found a worst case
analysis prepared by BLM to be brief, cursory, based upon an
entirely wrong assumption, and, in short, inadequate. It further
found an environmental assessment, at least in this case, and
apparently in any case in which a worst case analysis is
included, to be the functional equivalent of an EIS and thus
subject to the same procedural requirements as an EIS, including
a 45 day public comment period. The decision also reiterates the
SQCATS holding that agencies cannot rely on registration of a
herbicide under FIFRA (Federal Insecticide Fungicide- and
Rodenticide Act), finding, among other things, that "EPA's data
is partial at best, and suspect at worst, because of the testing
scandals. The availability of the data of the chemical companies
is also in question." Thus, the Court concluded, that the
agencies must do their own independent research on the health
effects of a herbicide if no adequate data exists. The Court
ordered the District Court to broaden its initial injunction to
effect a total ban on spraying until adequate worst case analyses
had been prepared. The government currently has a petition for a
rehearing of these consolidated cases in front of the Ninth
Ci rcui t.
-71-
-------
There have been and currently are several lawsuits involving
the worst case, issue at the district court level. Many of these
involve the proposed use of herbicides. One case, decided this
summer by a district court in Oregon, involves a different
situation. In that case, National Wildlife Federation v. U.S.
Forest Service, the Forest Service proposed a timber sale in a
certain area of the Siuslaw National Forest. An EIS had been
prepared in 1979 for timber harvest levels in the National Forest
and site specific EAs were prepared for individual sales. The
area of the proposed sale in this case is vulnerable to severe
effects of landslides, which, among other things, can affect
water quality and fisheries' productivity. The Forest Service
proposed to use leave areas and other mitigation techniques to
overcome these problems. The court found that it is uncertain
that leave areas will effectively prevent landslides, and that
"Without accurate evidence of the effectiveness of leave areas as
mitigation techniques, the Forest Service must prepare a worst
case analysis. Here, a worst case analysis should reflect a
serious reduction in anadromous fish habitat."
We are concerned with the Ninth Circuit's assumption that an
environmental assessment becomes the functional equivalent of an
EIS upon the inclusion of a worst case analysis. First, the
regulations simply do not require preparation of a worst case
analysis in an EA. Second, there is no precedent for applying
the procedural requirements of an EIS to an EA. There is already
a tendency on the part of some agencies to treat an environmental
assessment as a mini-EIS, which it is NOT. It is our feeling that
-72-
-------
environmental assessments should be, as stated in the
regulations, brief concise public documents -- the suggested page
length is ten to fifteen pages. If more is needed, or an agency
knows that the proposal is a major federal action significantly
affecting the quality of the human environment, the agency should
be preparing an EIS. But environmental assessments have their
own particular purposes and should not be transformed into simply
a sub-species of EIS(s).
There are additional problems looming behind the worst case
issue which, I believe, go beyond the issue of which procedural
requirements attach to which type of document. There is
widespread confusion right now as to exactly what a worst case
analysis is -- is it someone's best guess as to what the worst
possible occurrence might be, or is it an elaborate analysis
based upon data models; if EPA's risk assessment process is not
acceptable, is there any recognized risk assessment technique
that is acceptable? How is "worst case" defined in any given
situation; can't someone always think of some factor in a given
scenario which would make the "worst" worse? Is a "worst case"
analysis helpful to a decisionmaker and meaningful to the public?
Further, neither the judicial nor the executive branch has
addressed the very basic question of how the worst case analysis
requirement fits into the technique of risk assessment. This
would seem to be a particularly vital question with respect to
the decisions regarding the possible carcinogenic effects of
chemicals and the courts' obvious mistrust of EPA's risk
assessment work. As I have become more involved in this issue, I
-73-
-------
feel that at least some of the problems in this area come from
what seems to be a rather traditional and entrenched lack of
communication between lawyers and scientists on issues such as
this one. Very few lawyers, I suspect -- certainly not myself,
and hence, few judges have had training in the science of risk
assessment; very few understand its possibilities and
limitations. Everyone concerned, however, wants a worst case
analysis to be something credible and meaningful to the
decisionmaker and the public.
These are just a few of the questions which we are beginning
to grapple with in connection with this issue. To help us in
finding some answers, we plan to seek the help of experts in the
field of risk assessment both in and outside of government and
ask for their recommendations on the worst case issue. We will
also be considering the legal and public policy aspects of this
issue. I cannot tell you at this point what we are going to say
or exactly how we will say it; I can assure you that we mean to
approach it in a thoughtful and thorough manner. Whatever
proposal or proposals emerge from this process, we will seek the
viewpoints of all interested parties, including participation
from the public, and there will be a very open process.
-74-
-------
JOHN H. ELLIOTT, JR.
JOHN H. ELLIOTT, JR. has wide-ranging experience in both the
private sector and government. Fifteen years of private sector
experience includes purchasing, owning, and serving as president
of a $15 million annual sales wholesale and retailing operation.
Additionally, he co-owned a company which bought and sold steel
mill electrical equipment.
He joined the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) in 1973, and
managed the Standards and Regulations Division, which exercised
oversight over the development of all EPA regulations until 1975.
He returned to the federal government in 1979 as a consultant to
EPA's Office of Pesticides and Toxic Substances, and later to the
Office of Planning and Management. In 1980, he was appointed as
the Deputy Office Director of the then Office of Administration,
which had agency-wide responsibility for personnel, facility
engineering and support services, contracts, automated data
processing, and library services. He is currently on detail to
the Council on Environmental Quality, where he acts as Project
Director for Annual Environmental Quality Reports, and for the
Cabinet Council's Global issues Working Group.
John is a graduate mechanical engineer from Carnegie Mellon
University.
-75-
-------
WORST CASE" ANALYSIS - HOW TO, WHEN TO, AND OTHER QUESTIONS
By John Elliott
Council on Environmental Quality
I am most decidedly not a lawyer -- rather an engineer by training.
Consequently, I will present a non-legal perspective of questions/problems
regarding "worst case" analysis from someone with a background in estimating
effects, developing an assessment of risk, and determining how to manage risk.
A word about my background and risk assessment. I have spent more time
in business than in government, and can attest that it is fraught with risk
and situations demanding risk management. More pertinently, I ran the EPA
standards and regulations process in the early 1970s, which got involved in
risk assessment, both implicitly and explicitly. While in that job in 1974,
I managed the first carcinogen risk assessment done at EPA on vinyl chloride,
which resulted in a vinyl chloride standard being issued in 1976 -- which I
will discuss further in a moment. While in government, I was a member of five
cancer policy committees (three at EPA, and two inter-agency), all of which
concluded with notable lack of success. These experiences have made me
realize how difficult estimating effects, doing risk assessments and managing
risk is.
This brings me to the topic at hand - "worst case" analysis. One of the
most troublesome things to me about "worst case" analysis is the name. As you
can well imagine, any lawyer worth his Mercedes can dream up a worse "worst
case". Let me present a hypothetical, although admittedly unlikely, example
in a new area where we expect "worst case" analysis to be required - genetic
engineering. An area where experimentation is being done is in growing
tomatoes. I can just imagine a worst case developed in the fertile imagi-
nation of some lawyer involving giant killer tomatoes who devour Cleveland.
A real and current case is the spraying of a pesticide or herbicide containing
a suspected human carcinogen - a good argument can be made that the "worst
case" is that the maximum possible number of people are exposed under some
freak set of circumstances, and that everyone so exposed contracts cancer and
dies. This brings up several questions. Is such a "worst case" approach
realistic? Does it help decision-maker or public? I strongly believe the
answer to both these questions is no.
Some background on "worst case" analysis might be helpful before
attempting to answer these questions. The "worst case" analysis section of
NEPA guidelines was thought up by lawyers who had no experience in estimating
effects or assessing risks. They assumed "worst case" would only be employed
a small percentage of the time, since adequate effects and risk assessment
information could be obtained .from the public sector. Actually, any of us
involved in risk assessment know that the converse is much more likely to be
true. An example of this, which I previously mentioned, is the vinyl chloride
risk assessment. Vinyl chloride causes a cancer of the liver in humans which
-76-
-------
is almost invariably fatal. In the case of vinyl chloride, we had a great
deal of information that we usually don't have for suspected carcinogens.
We knew that vinyl chloride was a human carcinogen, and knew the human dose
response curve (at least at high levels) -- eliminating the mouse-to-man
assumption. Further, we had measured ambient concentrations, and knew the
routes of exposure and population patterns around the plants which produced
vinyl chloride. Despite the above, we caveated our findings by saying
calculated effects could easily be off by a factor of 10 or more either way,
and even this result was valid only if one believed the major assumption of a
linear dose response to zero, which in essence says a million people exposed
to one unit of a carcinogen is the equivalent risk of one person being exposed
to a million units. I believe this example illustrates that even under the
best of situations regarding potential risk to human health, it is unlikely
that all desired information will be known or available.
Consequently, in a practical sense, what is "worst case" analysis, and
when and how should it be done? Dinah has explained the case law and I am not
going to attempt to elaborate -- I just want to emphasize that the regulations
pertaining to "worst case" analysis, the pertinent text of which is contained
in Table 1, are extremely complicated and controversial. Before getting into
the how and when of "worst case", I want to mention two points. First,
although I have primarily focused on human health, "worst case" applies to
environmental situations as well. For example, the Army Corps of Engineers
has been required to address "worst case" analysis for possible oil spills in
connection with deepwater ports. Secondly, I want to emphasize that there are
a wide range of opinions on how "worst case" analysis should be resolved. One
contingent feels strongly that the "worst case" analysis concept is basically
flawed, adds nothing to an EIS, and consequently, should be ignored. Another
Table 1. Pertinent Text of Regulations - Incomplete or Unavailable
Information (40 C.F.R. 1502-22)
When an agency is evaluating significant adverse effects on the human
environment in an environmental impact statement, and there are gaps in
relevant information or scientific uncertainty, the agency shall always make
clear that such information is lacking or that uncertainty exists.
(a) If the information relevant to adverse impacts is essential to a
reasoned choice among alternatives, and is not known, and the overall costs of
obtaining it are not exorbitant, the agency shall include the information in
the environmental impact statement.
(b) If (1) the information relevant to adverse impacts is essential to a
reasoned choice among alternatives, and is not known, and the overall costs of
obtaining it are exorbitant, or (2) the information relevant to adverse
impacts is important to the decision and the means to obtain it are not known
(e.g., the means for obtaining it are beyond the state of the art) the agency
shall weigh the need for the action against the risk and severity of possible
adverse impacts were the action to proceed in the face of uncertainty. If the
agency proceeds, it shall include a worst case analysis and an indication of
the probability or improbability of its occurrence.
-77-
-------
contingent, comprised primarily of outside environmentalists, feels equally
strongly that "worst case" analysis should be done in every EIS, and that it
should be an important cornerstone of the EIS process. I suspect that you --
as professionals who are involved in the EIS process — will generally end up
with opinions on handling "worst case" analysis that are not represented by
either of these contingents.
Generally, I see the regulations requiring that three basic questions be
addressed. While examining these questions, it should be kept in mind that
the answers to one question may well influence answers to others. Two of
these are "how to" and "when to do" "worst case" analysis, and I feel that if
these questions are answered, they will define the issue of "what is worst
case analysis". The third, which I think is equally important, but maybe not
as obvious, is how to present this information to both the public and decsion-
makers. I'll spend some time examining each of these questions, recognizing
however, that we don't have answers to questions at this time.
When to do "Worst Case" Analysis
The questions in this section and in the next two sections were compiled
from responses of interested agencies to a list I originally generated.
Can the risks to be addressed in analysis under regulation section
1502.22 be identified by the following questions, and if so, which questions
and how?
o How can "gaps in relevant information" be defined in a practical,
workable manner?
o How can the term "scientific uncertainty" be defined in a practical,
workable manner in the context of taking government action?
o How can one determine whether missing information is essential to a
reasoned choice among alternatives?
o What factors should be considered when determining whether the costs
of obtaining relevant information is exorbitant?
o Should any other thresholds be applied prior to performing such
analysis (for example, a threshold of probability, a threshold of
severe consequences, etc.)? If so, when and how in the process
should such a threshold be applied?
o What types of effects (e.g., potential cancer risk, irreversible
substantial environmental damages, etc.) should be considered as
warranting analysis?
o What types of actions warrant a worst case (or risk) analysis?
o Should worst-case analysis be limited to those situations where
resulting impacts could have significant effects on the human
environment?
-78-
-------
o Does the division in the regulation 1502.22(b) between items (1) and
(2) articulate an appropriate and workable standard for determining
when such an analysis should be prepared?
o Should a worst-case threshold be variable, depending on the
potential severity of possible impacts from an unlikely event?
In a prior CEQ approach of when to do "worst case" analysis, CEQ employed
a threshold of probability. In 1983, CEQ issued guidance which recommended a
threshold for doing "worst case" of reasonably forseeable. This guidance was
withdrawn for further consideration, based on comments and criticism which
suggested guidance did not effectively and appropriately recognize the
complexity of "worst case" analysis. Another very interesting issue to be
resolved regarding "when to" is whether "worst case" should address actions
such as criminal activity or terrorism, which may have a higher probability
than other scenarios being addressed.
How to do "Worst Case" Analysis
What kind of analyis will best identify gaps in knowledge and scientific
uncertainty, and ensure that decision.-makers and the public are appropriately
informed of possible adverse impacts of proceeding, despite insufficient
knowledge or scientific uncertainty?
o What analytical methods are appropriate for developing such
an analysis (e.g., "decision tree" approach)?
o Are the probabilistic techniques currently used in nuclear facility
siting adaptable for use in worst case analysis?
o What factors should agencies consider in determining the level of
expenditure of resources, time, and effort that is reasonable to
prepare such an analysis in the context of preparing an
environmental impact statement?
o Are there appropriate time or geographic limits to consider in a
risk analysis?
o What particular guidelines can be suggested to ensure that the
analysis complies with the spirit and framework of the NEPA
regulations which state:
(b). . . "Most important, NEPA documents must concentrate on the
issues that are truly significant to the action in question, rather
than amassing needless detail.
(c). . . "Ultimately, of course, it is not better documents but
better decisions that count. NEPA's purpose is not to generate
paperwork — even excellent paperwork -- but to foster excellent
action." 40 C.F.R. 15001.
o What tests of reasonability can be applied to the analysis?
-79-
-------
o What constitutes analytic balance between information gathered on
adverse impacts and on probability of impacts?
o Can a prototype worst-case or risk analyses be completed and used
for successive similar actions?
One major underlying question regarding "how to" is whether worst case is
considered an isolated event or a range of events. It seems to me that the
range approach may be more consistent with the overall information purposes of
the statute.
There have been limited attempts to do "worst case" analyses. One of
these is a fairly sophisticated attempt by the Forest Service to identify
cancer risk involved with spraying pesticides. The courts are currently
reviewing their approach. A major problem they are having is that courts are
questioning the "credibility" of information supplied by agencies. A lot of
this problem has to do with how analysis is presented.
Presenting "Worst Case" Analysis Information
How can such an analysis be presented to ensure that all relevant
information regarding adverse effects and alternatives receive appropriate
attention and weighing by decision-makers and the public?
o How can bias in information presentation best be avoided and
balanced achieved?
o How can misconceptions regarding risk arising from material that is
factually accurate best be prevented or minimized?
o How can information best be presented to facilitate communication
and informed decision-making?
o How do information needs of decision-makers and public differ?
In my opinion, how information is presented is one of the most important
areas that needs to be addressed. At a minimum, information presented must be
"credible".
Administrator Ruckelshaus, in a recent speech, addressed the
"credibility" of government issue, and described how EPA (and other agencies)
must regain the "benefit of the doubt" in the eyes of the public and courts
and be regarded as "credible" to function effectively. One factor detracting
from credibility of risk assessment information is that it isn't usually
appropriately caveated. I am sure all of you have seen numbers such as 3.1417
x 10" excess annual deaths associated with risk of some chemcial in the
environment. Only by careful reading, and then usually later in the report,
do you discover that the authors have reasonable confidence in that number
only within a factor of plus or minus ten, and that only if you accept their
assumptions. As an engineer, I was taught never to present a number with more
significant places than one has reasonable confidence in. The major problem
-80-
-------
with presenting data in the above fashion is that the courts, the public and
others believe the government knows the risks involved with a great deal more
certitude than they are willing to state, and consequently, "credibility" is
jeopardized.
Some examples of risk misperception may be useful in illustrating some
other difficulties of presenting risk information in a "credible" fashion.
People overestimate risks which cause relatively few deaths;
conversely, underestimate risks which cause relatively large
numbers of deaths; and
People's perceptions are greatly influenced by news reports, and
news reports contain biases which are predictable and similar around
the country. Both of these sets of biases can be seen in Table 2
Perception is influenced by how risk is reported, even by
professionals who should understand risk, as is illustrated
in Table 3.
Perceptions of everyday risks, versus involuntary risks, such as due
to environmental chemicals, are not very accurate. I expect the
risks listed in Table 4 may provide a few surprises, even for you
professionals.
What are we doing to answer these sets of questions, and to resolve the
"worst case" situation? We are exploring panels and conferences involving
outside experts, considering issuing contracts or hiring of consultants, and
other ways to get informed discussion of issues and questions -- including our
participation in this conference. We are reviewing feedback, and based on /
this, intend at sometime in the not too distant future to issue additional ,
interpretive guidance or regulatory modification in some appropriate form.
-81-
-------
Table 2. Statistical Frequency and Newspaper Coverage
in the Eugene, Oregon Register-Guard (R-G) and the New Bedford, Massachusetts Standard-Times (S-T)
i
oo
ro
i
Rate
2.05
Cause of Death U.S.
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
13.
14.
15.
16.
17.
18.
19.
20.
21.
22.
23.
24.
25.
Smallpox
Poisoning by vitamins
Botulism
Measles
Fi reworks
Smallpox vaccination
Whooping cough
Polio
Venomous bite or sting
Tornado
Lightning
Non-venomous animal
Flood
Excess cold
Syphilis
Pregnancy, birth & Abort.
Infectious hepatitis
Appendicitis
Electrocution
MV/train collision
Asthma
Fi rearm accident
Poison by solid/liquid
Tuberculosis
Fire and Flames
Conclusion: Two newspapers, at opposite
The
biases in newspaper coverage relate
of death: Biased newspaper coverage and
per „
for 41 Causes
Reported
x 10 Subjects'
Residents Estimates
0
1
2
5
6
8
15
17
48
90
107
129
205
334
410
451
677
902
1,025
1,517
1,886
2,255
2,563
3,690
7,380
ends of the U.S.
closely to biases
biased judgments
57
102
183
168
160
23
93
97
350
564
91
174
736
314
492
1,344
545
605
766
689
506
1,345
1,013
658
3,336
Deaths
R-G S-T
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
36 25
1 0
4 2
4 10
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
5 0
0 1
1 0
8 1
3 3
0 0
94 46
are similarly biased in
in people's
perceptions
. Journalism Quarterly,
of Death
Rate per „
Cause
26.
27.
28.
29.
30.
31.
32.
33.
34.
35.
36.
37.
38.
39.
40.
41.
Total
2.
of death U.
Drowning
Leukemia
Accidental Falls
Homicide
Emphysema
Suicide
Breast cancer
Diabetes
Motor vehicle accident
Lung cancer
Stomach cancer
All accidents
Stroke
All cancer
Heart disease
All disease
number of reports (causes
05 x 10"
S. Residents
7,
14,
17,
18,
21,
24,
31,
38,
55,
75,
95,
112,
209,
328,
738,
1,740,
29, 31,
380
b55
425
860
730
600
160
950
350
850
120
750
100
000
000
450
37, & 41)
Subjects'
Estimates
1,684
2,496
2,67b
5,582
2,848
4,679
2,964
1,476
41,161
9,764
3,283
88,879
7,109
45,609
23,599
88,838
Correlations (R-G vs. S-T)
their
reporting of various causes
. Source: Combs, B. & Slovic, P.
1979,
56, 837-843.
„_
Reported
Deaths
R-G
47
1
15
278
1
29
0
0
298
3
0
715
12
25
49
111
1133
r =
S-T
60
0
7
208
0
19
0
1
83
2
1
596
4
12
30
87
910
.97
of death.
Causes
-------
TABLE 3. PRESENTATION FORMAT EFFECTS IN MEDICAL DECISION MAKING:
SURGERY VS. RADIATION THERAPY
Reference: McNeil, 8. J., Pauker, S.G., Sox, H.C. & Tversky, A. On the
Elicitation of Preferences for Alternative Therapies. New England Journal of
Medicine. 1982, 306, 1259-1262.
McNeil et al. asked 424 physicians, 238 patients, and 495 business students to
choose between surgery and radiation therapy for lung cancer.
Problem format was varied with regard to:
a.
Risk data (life expectancy vs. cumulative probability of
surviving for N years).
b. Outcome framing (mortality rates vs. survival rates)
Results
a. Surgery was generally preferred, but especially so when life
expectancy and survival statistics were given.
b.' Physicians were influenced as much by format as were laypersons.
c. What are the implictions of these results for informed consent
and patient preference elicitation?
Percentage of Subjects Choosing Radiation Therapy Over Surgery
Format
Students
Cumul ative
Mortality
Statistics
43
Physicians 50
Patients
Overall
Source:
12
44
McNeil et al.
Probability
Survival
Statistics
17
16
22_
18
(1981)
Life Expectancy
Mortality
Statistics
21
28
J55
25
Survival
Statistics
9
9
li
11
-83-
-------
TABLE 4. RISKS WHICH INCREASE THE CHANCE OF DEATH IN ANY ONE YEAR
BY ONE IN A MILLION (0.000001)
Smoking 1.4 cigarettes
Drinking 1/2 liter of wine
Spending 1 hour in a coal mine
Spending 3 hours in a coal mine
Living 2 days in New York or
Boston
Travelling 6 minutes by canoe
Travelling 10 miles by bicycle
Travelling 300 miles by car
Flying 1000 miles by jet
Flying 6000 miles by jet
Living 2 months in Denver
on vacation from N.Y.
Living 2 months in average
stone or brick building
One chest x-ray taken in
a good hospital
Living 2 months with a
cigarette smoker
Eating 40 tablespoons of
peanut butter
Drinking Miami drinking
water for 1 year
Drinking 30 12 oz. cans of
diet soda
Living 5 years at site
boundary of a typical nuc-lear
power plant in the open
Drinking 1000 24 oz.
soft drinks from recently
banned plastic bottles
Cancer, heart disease
Cirrhosis of the liver
Black lung disease
Accident
Air pollution
Accident
Accident
Accident
Accident
Cancer caused by cosmic
radiation
Cancer caused by cosmic
radiation
Cancer caused by natural
radioactivity
Cancer caused by radiation
Cancer, heart disease
Liver cancer caused by
aflatoxin B
Cancer caused by
chloroform
Cancer caused by
saccharin
Cancer caused by radiation
Cancer from acrylonitrile
monomer
-84-
-------
TABLE 4. RISKS WHICH INCREASE THE CHANCE OF DEATH IN ANY ONE YEAR
BY ONE IN A MILLION (0.000001) (Continued)
Living 20 years near
PVC plant
Living 150 years within 20
miles of a nuclear power plant
Eating 100 charcoal broiled
steaks
Risk of accident by living
within 5 miles of a nuclear
reactor for 50 years
Cancer caused by vinyl
chloride (1976 standard)
Cancer caused by radiation
Cancer from benzopyrene
Cancer caused by radiation
Source:Richard Wilson, Technology Review, February, 1979
-85-
-------
BEVERLEY N. CARRERA
BEVERLEY N. CARRERA is an Environmental Coordination Specialist
with the USDA, Forest Service, Environmental Coordination Staff
in Washington, D.C. Beverley began work with the Forest Service
in May 1952 in the Division of Information and Education and
has served in various capacities in the Division of Engineering
and Range Management, the National Forest System Deputy Area
Staff, and Programs and Legislation Deputy's Staff. She entered
her present position in March 1973, serving as principal
assistant to the Director of Environmental Coordination in
directing the national program for implementing the National
Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) in the Forest Service. Beverley
provides national leadership for the Environmental Impact
Statement program in the Forest Service and serves as staff
specialist, technical advisor, and manages programs and procedures
for the implementing of NEPA, providing program direction,
coordination, and evaluation on NEPA related activities.
-86-
-------
Presented by Beverley N. Carrera, USDA, Forest Service
at the Eighth Annual Environmental Review Conference
Worst Case Analysis Panel
Atlanta, Georgia
October 18-19, 1984
Forest Service Response to Court Decisions on the Worst Case Analysis
Issue.
First of all, let me say I don't profess to be an expert in this
complicated area of worst case analysis since I haven't been working
directly with the worst case issue. My boss, Dave Ketcham, Director of
Environmental Coordination in the Forest Service, has been working
intimately with worst case and it is unfortunate that he couldn't be
here. However, I did get a brief update from Dave last week and he gave
me his file to read through so I'll do my best to present the facts as I
see them and tell you some of what the Forest Service is doing as an
agency to respond to the various court decisions on worst case.
There are ten or eleven cases in litigation relating to vegetation
management programs, primarily in the western United States. Several of
these cases involve decisions by Judges to hold up spraying of
pesticides or herbicides until adequate worst case analysis is done. In
-87-
-------
three cases, the Forest Service is not a named party, but the outcome of
these cases could have significant effect on our programs.
I'll cover several of these briefly since it would take too long to go
through all of them. In 1982 and 1983, several Federal District Court
decisions challenged Forest Service and Bureau of Land Management
herbicide programs in the West. Judges cited inadequate worst case
analysis and curtailed some spraying programs. These were the Southern
Oregon Citizens Against Toxic Sprays (SOCATS) v. Clark, Save Our
Ecosystems (SOS) v. Clark, and Merrell v. Block cases. On December 13,
1983, the Ninth Circuit Court upheld lower court decisions on the
inadequacy of Forest Service and Bureau of Land Management worst case
documentation. Then on January 6, 1984, District Judge Burns, in the
Northwest Coalition for Alternatives to Pesticides (NCAP) v. Block case,
enjoined Forest Service in Oregon and Washington and the Bureau of Land
Management in Oregon from applying herbicides in any vegetative
management programs until adequate NEPA documents with worst case
analyses are completed.
In the SOCATS v Clark case which involves the Bureau of Land Management,
a petition for writ of certiorari was filed with the Supreme Court in
August to review the Ninth Circuit Court decision. The Supreme Court
has not yet accepted the petition. We won't know whether or not it will
be accepted until after October 22 and probably not before November 15.
In the NCAP v. Block, Clark, Ruckelshaus, et al, the court issued an
injunction against use of herbicides based on failure to do adequate
-88-
-------
worst case analysis. 'The Chief of the Forest Service deferred all
aerial application of herbicides in the Forest Service pending review of
this and related decisions. A notice of appeal was filed on April 30,
1984, by the Federal Government. Further action is pending on this
case. It is interesting that the Forest Service has halted all spraying
in primarily remote forested areas because of these court decisions, yet
homeowners use many of the same chemicals routinely in control of weeds
in their own yards and gardens in populated areas.
Another significant case for the Forest Service is the Mapleton Lawsuit
- again in the Ninth Circuit. In this case the Oregon District Court
halted all timber sales on the Mapleton District of the Siuslaw National
Forest, charging absence of worst case analysis and inadequate analysis
of site-specific and cumulative effects in the 7-year action plan. This
involves an area of relatively fragile soils where timber sales and
roads are causing extreme erosion. The worst case in this one involves
fish habitat. In an amended opinion on August 6, the Judge stated that
in the alternative of submitting to the Court a Final Environmental
Impact Statement with worst case analysis and cumulative effects for the
7-year action plan, the Forest Service could include a worst case
analysis and an analysis of cumulative impacts in an Environmental
Assessment for each timber sale in the 7-year action plan. I believe
this case is still subject to appeal until October 29. A decision has
not yet been made on whether to appeal. Since these cases are still
pending in litigation and there are different perceptions of what the
Judges are saying, the situation is difficult to say the least. The
-89-
-------
Forest Service will comply with the Courts' decisions, but we don't know
how yet.
Some of the actions the Forest Service has already taken are as follows:
1. Finalizing background documents on 12 commonly used herbicides
for use by field units in conducting environmental analyses and
preparing environmental documents.
2. Contracted with a consultant to provide criteria and guidelines
on risk analysis with worst case assumptions, and
3. In an effort to satisfy the requirements of 40 CFR 1502.22 and
recent court decisions, the Forest Service has developed a conceptual
framework for consideration of risk in environmental analysis which
features a threshold or screen for triggering risk analysis and
consideration of a range of alternative scenarious and probabilities.
This approach utilizes the best of current technology and provides a
logical approach leading to the proper presentation of necessary
information. It outlines the stages that must be passed through in
incorporating risk considerations into environmental analyses.
We're using the "risk analysis" terminology because we believe that the
common interpretation of the Courts' decisions is that of requiring
"worst-worst" which is impossible. Everyone can think of something
worse and it gets to be "I can think of a worst worse case than you"
sort of thing and can be taken to the ridiculous. We also don't want to
_on_
-------
jeopardize USDI (BLM's) position in the SOCATS case by using worst case
terminology.
It is our feeling in the Forest Service that if we do risk analysis for
an environmental assessment, we must come out with a FONSI which,
therefore, would not trigger worst case analysis. If we don't come out
with a FONSI we would need an EIS. We think that the Ninth District
Court Judge is saying that you may do worst case analysis in an
Environmental Assessment, but if you do you must treat it like an
Environmental Impact Statement and allow a 45-day comment period. In
other words, if you want to do an EIS and call it an EA - okay.
During the past year, we have prepared or are in the process of
preparing worst case analysis or risk analysis with worst case
assumptions in the Gypsy Moth Suppression and Regulatory Program EIS
(human health aspects), the Drug Enforcement Agency's Cannabis
Eradication Program EIS in which the Forest Service is a cooperating
agency (combination of conceptual framework and health aspects), and the
Vegetation Management Program EIS for our California Region.
We are working very closely with Justice, USDI-BLM and CEQ and want to
work very closely with CEQ in the effort to revise the 40 CFR 1502.22
terminology, to help define "scientific uncertainty" and "worst," and to
develop implementation guidance.
-91-
-------
-------
WORKSHOP B
BOTTOMLAND HARDWOOD ECOSYSTEMS - ACCOMMODATING
DEVELOPMENT AND CONSERVATION NEEDS
Jay Benforado, Chairperson
Ecologist
Office of Federal Activities
U.S. EPA
Washington, D.C.
Robert Terry Huffman
National Wetlands Technical Council
San Francisco, CA
Randall A. Kramer, Assistant Professor
Department of Agricultural Economics
Virginia Polytechnic Institute
Blacksburg, VA
Steven W. Forsythe
Fish and Wildlife Biologist
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
Vicksburg Field Office
Vicksburg, MS
James E. Dean
Conservation Agronomist
USDA-Soil Conservation Service
Athens, Georgia
Barry F. Malac, Technical Director
Union Camp Woodlands
Savannah, Georgia
Morgan R. Rees
Assistant for Regulatory Programs
Office of the Assistant Secretary of the Army
Civil Works, Pentagon
Washington, D.C.
-------
BOTTOMLAND HARDWOOD ECOSYSTEM: ACCOMODATING
DEVELOPMENT AND CONSERVATION
Jay Benforado, Chairperson Ecologist, U.S. E.P.A., Office of
Federal Activities, Washington, DC
James E. Dean, Conservation Agronomist, U.S. Department of
Agriculture, Soil Conservation Service, Athens, GA
Steven W. Forsythe, Fish and Wildlife Biologist, U.S. Depart-
ment of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service, Vicksburg, MS
Robert T. Huffman, Consultant, Huffman Technologies Company,
San Francisco CA
Randall A. Kramer, Assistant Professor, Virginia Polytechnic
Institute and State University, Department of Agricultural
Economic, Blackburg, VA
Barry F. Malac, Technical Director, Union Camp Woodlands, Union
Camp Corporation, Savannah, GA
Morgan R. Rees, Assistant for Regulatory Programs, Department
of the Army, Office of the Assistant Secretary (Civil Works),
Pentagon, Washington, DC
Richard Stuart, Water Resource Planner, U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers, Lower Mississippi Valley Division, Vicksburg, MS
-------
JAY BENFORADO
Jay Benforado, Senior Ecologist, U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, Office of Federal Activities, Washington,.D.C.
EDUCATION
M.S. Indiana. University - Bloomington (1979)
School of Public and Environmental Affairs
B.S. University of Wisconsin - Madison (1977)
Double Major: Zoology/Geography
EXPERIENCE
U.S. EPA (Ecologist January 1984 - present)
I am responsible for Agency Headquarters liaision with^the
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service on controversial projects and 404 permits,
legislation, and implemeinting the National Environmental
Policy Act and Section 404 of the Clean Water Act. I have
lead responsibility in an EPA initiative on bottomland
hardwood wetlands.
The Conservation Foundation (Research Associate October 1979-
December 1983)
I worked in the Coastal and Water Resources Program (under
John Clark) on a variety of projects dealing with wetlands
and floodplains. As Assistant Director of the National
Wetlands Technical Council I helped organize a national
workshop on bottomland hardwoods held in June 1980 at Lake
Lanier, GA
Two Leave of Absence were taken:
In 1981 to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Eastern
Energy and Land Use Team
In 1983 to the EPA Office of Research and Development
where I assisted in planning water quality research at
four EPA environmental laboratories.
PUBLICATIONS (Recent)
1. Co-editor with John Clark Wetlands of Bottomland Hardwood
Forests (1981). Published in a series titled "Developments
in Agricultural and Managed-Forest Ecology" by El Sevier
Scientific Publishing Company
2. An article in the March 1983 issue of Technology Review,
published at MIT, on using natural ecosystem to treat
municipal wastewater.
3. Coeditor with Dr. Paul Godfrey (U. of Mass.) on a book to be
published this fall by Van Nostrum Reinholt titled Ecological
Considerations in Wetland Treatment of Wastewater
-93-
-------
INTRODUCTION
The protection of bottomland hardwood forests of the southern
river valleys of the United States has emerged as one of the
most controversial wetland issues of the last decade. These
floodplain forests have been extensively diked, cleared, and,
most often, planted in soybeans, thereby removing them from
the riverine ecosystem. In the the lower Mississippi Valley,
a recent study by the Army Corps of Engineers estimated the
current loss rate to be 100,000 acres per year. The outcome
is a gain in cropland, but a loss of wildlife and fisheries
habitat, downstream flood mitigation, detrital export, timber
harvest, and water quality.
Concern over the environmental impacts caused by destruction
of bottomland hardwoods have prompted the U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency (EPA) to undertake a comprehensive study of
this ecosystem. The purpose is to identify and assess
alternative options for more effectively implementing EPA's
responsibilities under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act in
these wetalnd areas. The objectives are to assemble the most
up-to-date scientific information and to identify the environ-
mental consequences of EPA's regulatory options. The approach
will be to first characterize bottomland hardwoods in terms of
their ecological functions that relate to EPA's Clean Water Act
responsibilities (and EPA's specific authorities under Section
404). The next step will be to characterize the impacts of
landclearing and hydrologic modification on these functions.
Finally, the effect of possible EPA policy options will be
analyzed to determine the effectiveness of regulation in in-
fluencing the condition and fate of bottomland hardwood wetlands.
PURPOSE OF SESSION
EPA convened this panel of experts to broadly examine issues
associated with bottomland hardwood from a variety of perspec-
tives. Panel members were selected to represent different
backgrounds and interests, including agricultural economics,
wildlife biology, ecology, agronomy, water resource planning,
and forestry. The group came from academe, government, industry
and consulting firms. Each brought a different perspective on
the resource values of bottomland hardwoods. The panel members
began each session with brief statements which flowed into
lively audience questions and panel discussion. What follows
is a summary of the presentations and discussions, prepared by
the Panel Chairman.
-94-
-------
WHAT ARE BOTTOMLAND HARDWOODS?
Bottomland hardwood forests occupy the broad floodplains that
flank many of the major rivers in the southeastern United
States (Figure 1). The Southern bottomland forests encompass
about 30.8 million acres from Virginia south to the subtropical
hardwood forests of south Florida, west to eastern Texas and
Oklahoma, and north up the Mississippi River Valley to southern
Illinois and Indiana. In the five southeastern states of
Virginia, North and South Carolina, Georgia, and Florida,
bottomland hardwood forests are found largely on the Coastal
Plain, but also occur on the river and stream margins of the
Piedmont. In terms of ownership patterns in these states,
about 70% is owned by farms and other private landowners,
nearly 25% is owned or leased by the forest industry (largely
pulp and paper industries), and only 5% is in public ownership.
The largest single area of bottomland hardwoods occurs in the
lower Mississippi Valley. In addition to the mainstem
Mississippi River, its tributaries have extensive bottomland
areas, including the Arkansas, Red, Quachita, Yazoo, and St.
Francis. Other large rivers in the southeast with significant
BLH floodplains are the Pearl, Tombigbee, Alabama, Pascagoula,
Chattahoochee, Apalachicola, and Suwannee Rivers that drain
into the Gulf of Mexico, and the Altamaba, Ogeechee,
Santee-Cooper, Pee Dee, Cape Fear, Neuse, and Roanoke Rivers
that flow into the Atlantic Ocean.
pigure 1. Distribution of bottomland hardwood forests
in the Southeastern United States.
-95-
-------
Because the floodplains occupied by bottomland hardwoods are
transitional between permanent water and uplands, they can be
elusive to classify. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
classifies bottomland hardwoods as forested wetlands. Other
terms used to classify this community are seasonally flooded
basins or flats, mixed bottomland hardwoods and tupelo-cypress
swamps, deep swamp and many others.
The National Wetlands Technical Council and the Corps Waterways
Experiment Station have developed a zonal classification of the
floodplain forest based on characteristics of soils, hydrology
and vegetation (Figure 2). It subdivides the system into six
ecological zones provides a standardized framework for dif-
ferentiating ecological units within bottomland hardwood and
forests. This zonal classification is useful in understanding
the environmental factors necessary for effective management
considerations as shown in Table 1. The U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency is now studying its utility in regulatory
questions (e.g., jurisdiction and impact assessment).
FLOODPLAIN ENVIRONMENT
Alluvial floodplains are built of deposits of sand, silt,
clay and calcareous sediments laid down by a river during
flood" stage. Over geological time, a river meanders accross
the entire floodplain reworking the sediments. As a result,
floodplains are generally flat, but numerous minor physical
features of relief create, differences in drainage and
hydroperiod. The low topographic relief of the floodplain
landscape is deceptive; a matter of inches in elevation may
produce distinct differences in ecological communities. The
result is a complex arrangement of wet soils and bibtic
communities.
The physical features of floodplains are distinctive and are
shaped by water processes. Natural levees are formed during
periods of overbank flooding. As waters spread out over the
floodplain, the current abruptly slackens and suspended sands
and silts are deposited (as a levee) immediately adjacent and
parallel to the channel. Levees have well drained soils and
slope gently down (away from the river) to backswamps where
finer silts and clays are deposited. Some large rivers like
the Mississippi have levees that can be a mile wide, while
smaller rivers generally have levees that may be 100-300 feet
across.
The floodplain area between the levee and the valley wall is
often called ambiguously a "back swamp" or a "flat," where
elevational relief is limited to minor depressions and almost
-96-
-------
VI
1
IV 1 III
L~— — — — TII^---~
IV
_-
V
VI
f--
I
VI
Figure 2. (A) An Idealized sequence of NWTC bottomland hardwood zones from a water body to an upland, along
a moisture continuum (dotted line represents the depth of the water table). (B) One-half of a floodplaln,
from mid-alluvial river $o bluff, Indicates modification of the Idealized sequence by the Intrusion of a
natural levee between Zones II and III. If low enough, the levee may bear Zones II and III; 1f higher, Zone
IV, and higher still, Zone V (C). (C) Further modification of the Idealized sequence by Inclusion of an
abandoned river channel (filled with a clay plug and/or peat).
-------
Table f. Physicochemical characteristics of floodplain soils by National Wetland Technical Council (NWTC) Zones
(partially derived from Clark and Benforado 1981). Zone I (permanent water courses) is excluded from this table.
Characteristic
Degree of inundation
and saturation
Timing of
flooding
Probability of
annual flooding
Duration
of flooding
Soil texture
11
Intermittently exposed;
nearly permanent inun-
dation and saturation
Year-round except
during extreme
droughts
100*
100* of ttie growing
season
Dominated by sitty
clays or sands
Zones
III
Semipermanently inun-
dated or saturated
Spring and summer
during most of the
growing season
51S-100*
>25I of the growing
season
Dominated by dense
clays
IV
Seasonally inundated
or saturated
Spring for 1-2 months
of the growing season
51J-100S
12.5S-25* of the
growing season
Clays dominate surface;
some coarser fractions
(sands) increase with
depth
V
Temporarily
inundated or
saturated
Periodically
for up to 1
month of
growing
season
1 OS- 501
2S-12.5S of
growing
season
Clay and
sandy loams
dominate;
sandy soils
frequent
VI
Intermittently
inundated or
saturated
During excep-
tionally Mgh
floods or
extreme wet
periods
1S-2QS
<2l of the
growing season
Sands to c3ays
C"
c
I
-------
imperceptable rises. The soils in these areas are comprised
of clays and fine silts which, together with flat topography,
significantly impede water drainage. Over long periods of time
as the river meanders across the floodplain, a series of remnant
levees are left behind which form a series of ridges with
intervening depressions or swales. Ridge-swale topography is
a common feature of larger floodplains which consists of bands
of higher, better drained sites mixed together with wet and
poorly drained sites.
HYDROLOGY
Water is the driving force of the bottomland hardwood communities
and flooding is a vital feature in the maintenance of these
wetland systems. Sources of water to bottomlands includes
precipitation, overbank flooding, and groundwater. The timing
and duration of innundation or soil saturation events (i.e.,
hydroperiod) are keys to bottomland forest community development.
Headwater and backwater flooding, side flooding from tributaries,
tides rains and groundwater fluctuations govern hydroperiods.
The topographic character of a site and the magnitude of these
water fluctuations define the duration, extent and type of
innundation or soil saturation. In addition, the nature of the
soil has an important effect on the wetness of an area — heavy
clays drain much more slowly than coarsely textured materials
and the effect of saturation therefore persists longer in clay
soils.
Understanding the annual flooding cycle is critical to under-
standing the functioning of bottomland hardwoods. During low
river stages the forest acts as a buffer between the mesic
uplands and the river. Rainfall on the watershed is efficiently
absorbed by the litter-covered forest floor. Evapotranspiration
rates are high so that runoff through the forest is generally
kept at a minimum. Runoff from adjacent uplands flowing across
the riparian forest is purified by removal of inorganic nutrients,
eroded sediments, and other materials such as agricultural
pesticides.
During periods of flood, the floodplain ecosystem acts as a
storage reservoir for excess water that spills out of the
channel. This reduces river stages downstream. Bottomland
hardwood ecosystems are adapted to and depends on periodic
flooding. For th'e plants and animals adapted to riparian
habitats, the periodic flooding and flushing by floodwaters
from adjacent streams provides an energy pulse which brings
in inorganic nutrients to stimulate plant production, improving
habitat diversity for deer, squirrels, raccons, and other
consumers. It also provides a habitat for spawning fish and
improves water quality of the adjacent stream.
-99-
-------
STATUS AND LOSS RATE
Nearly 90% of the 11 million acres of wetlands destroyed nation-
wide between the mid-1950's and mid-1970's/ were lost to agri-
cultural development. Agriculture had its greatest impact on
forested wetlands, where losses totaled about six million
acres, most of which occured in the lower Mississippi Valley
states of Louisiana, Mississippi and Arkansas. Federal flood
control projects and small watershed projects have accelarated
wetland conversion to cropland, especially from the 1950's to
the present.
Only 20% of the original bottomland hardwood forest in the
lower Mississippi Aluvial Plain remain and the U.S. Army Corps
of Engineers estimated that 1.2% of the remaining bottomland
forest is currently being lost annually. Although the dryer
parts of the forest are generally cleared first, wetland losses
in this region are startling. For example, Louisiana's forested
wetlands have declined 50% and current loss rates high; 98% of
southern bottomland swamps in Illinois have been destroyed.
The bottomland hardwood wetlands on the Atlantic Coastal Plain
— Florida, Georgia, North Carolina, South Carolina, Virginia
— have not been converted at such a rapid rate, but accelerated
clearing and drainage is a present threat.
Historically, cotton and corn were the primary crops raised
on cleared bottomland hardwoods, but since the mid-1950's
soybeans have dominated. Unlike other crops, soybeans have a
very short growing season, so they can be planted in areas
that remain flooded until June and can tolerate a variety of
soil conditions. Heavy foreign demand for soybeans has made
it a lucrative cash crop, and, economically, timber production
in a natural system cannot complete. Besides conversion to
agriculture, other significant impacts on bottomland hardwoods
have been conversion to tree-farm monoculture and catfish
farms, construction of impoundments, diversion channels,
dredging and shortening of channels.
FEDERAL REGULATION
The federal regulatory role in protecting bottomland hardwoods
lies in the wetter portion of the system which falls in the
jurisdiction of the Clean Water Act. The objective of the
Clean Water Act is "to restore and maintain the chemical,
physical and biological integrity of the Nation's waters"
and the Act emphasizes the functions that wetlands serve.
Bottomland hardwoods perform a variety of functions that
relate to these goals:
0 Water Quality Maintenance. Bottomland hardwoods serve
as natural filters that absorb nonpoint pollutants
-100-
-------
throughout the year and purify river waters by removing
suspended solids and other pollutants during flood
stage.
0 Habitat. The cycles of wetness and dryness in bottomland
hardwoods foster a rich and intricate mosaic of habitats
for a wide range of aquatic and terrestrial animals.
0 Foodchain (detrital export). Food chains in bottom-
land hardwoods can be divided into dry and wet system
pathways. The wet system functions in pools and during
inundation and involves bulk export of detritus into
sloughs, oxbows and rivers, where it forms the base of
the aquatic foodchain.
0 Flood control. Bottomland hardwood ecosystems play
a major role in controlling downstream flooding -
flood peaks do not get as high nor do they rise as
rapidly when these systems are intact.
0 Human Use. Recreational and commercial values of
bottomland hardwoods include timber production,
sport fishing and hunting, and commercial fisheries
(e.g., in Louisiana, ten mission pounds of red swamp
crawdads are harvested annually).
The values of bottomland hardwoods beyond obvious direct eco-
nomic uses by landowners, such as timber harvest and hunting,
have only recently been documented. Studies on the Appalachicola
River in Florida have shown that the infrequent pulses of
detritus from the bottomland hardwood system supports the
important shellfish industry to Appalachicola Bay. Migratory
songbirds along the Mississippi Flyway use the coastal bottom-
land hardwoods in the fall to build up fat reserves which
enables them to complete their nonstop flight across the Gulf
of Mexico. In recent years scientists have focused on quanti-
fying wetland functions, and are now developing assessment
techniques for determining what functions occur at a given
wetland site. It is likely that the additional research on the
functioning of the systems will help increase public awareness
of why undisturbed bottomland hardwoods are beneficial not just
to a landowner, but to the public.
EPA's 404 PROGRAM
EPA has recently responded to the landmark court decision in
Avoyelles Sportsmen's League, Inc. v Marsh, issued in
September 26, 1983. The outcome of this drawn out litigation
over landclearing on a 20,000 acre forested tract on the Red
River in Avoyelles Parish, Louisiana, provides a legal foundation
for asserting EPA's Section 404 Clean Water Act responsibilities.
-101-
-------
The background of the case is as follows: In 1978, the Corps
and EPA were sued for failing to regulate all of the tract
under Section 404. Plaintiffs felt that the tract was a
wetland within the scope of the Act and that landclearing
activities of the private defendants required a 404 permit.
In September of 1983, the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals in
its Avoyelles decision held that EPA's wetland determination
(which identified approximately 80% of the tract as wetland)
was within the regulatory definition of "wetlands" and that
the land clearing operation on the tract were discharges
regulated under Section 404.
EPA issued interim guidance in October 1984 to its regional
offices that summarizes the Avoyelles decision and outlines
current agency policy on geographic and activities jurisdiction
in bottomland hardwoods. In terms of 404 jurisdiction, the
guidance is based on consensus among scientists that the most
scientifically sound approach in bottomland hardwoods is a
"multiple parameter approach" that uses (facultative) plants,
soils and hyrdorlogy. The Avoyelles decision ratified this
approach and Corps research conducted at the Waterways
Experiment Station have developed it into an operational
field tool. In terms of what activities require a 404 permit,
the guidance is based on the recognition that landclearing
operations that occur in BLH wetlands involve considerable
scraping and redeposit of soil, and often require subsequent
drainage to avoid crop loss from flooding. The Fifth Circuit
found that the landclearing operation in the Avoyelles case,
which is typical in terms of equipment used and environmental
conditions, resulted in a regulated discharge under section
404. The EPA regions are now developing plans to implement
the guidance.
FORESTRY IN BOTTOMLAND HARDWOODS
The inherent productivity of floodplain forests makes them
particularly well suited to sustain intensive forest production.
There is an increasing demand for forest products in the south.
But unlike agriculture, where the forest system is removed,
there is a potential compatibiliity between protecting the
natural functions of bottomland hardwoods and management for
timber. The wood fiber of the bottomland hardwoods as an
essential part of forest industry's material resource and thus
the industry is not interested in converting bottomlands to
other uses.
Industry has not always been a good steward of the bottomland
resource. Poor exploitive management practices such as
-102-
-------
highgrading (i.e., taking out only the best material and leaving
the rest) have left parts of the southern bottomland hardwood
forests in a deteriorated condition. Volume and quality of
sawtimber is on the decline, and much of the acreage requires
intensive cultural work and seen some needs clearcutting and a
new start. The decline is most dramatically in the thousands
of acres of worthless blue beach and ironwood stands that once
were magnificent bottomland hardwood forests. The rehabilitation
of the bottomland hardwoods represents not only one of the most
pressing problems facing the wood-using industry, but also
perhaps the most exciting and challenging management opportunity.
It is likely that the bottomland hardwood forests will play a
much more important role in supplying the predicted demand
for wood fiber products. Industry can no longer afford to
neglect and abuse one-half of its vital natural resource and
must continue to improve its management practices.
Silvicultural Practices
In order to bring about the needed changes in the management of
bottomland hardwood forests, the industry has examined a variety
of management options. Textbooks on silviculture contain many
elegant practices, but most practicing foresters agree that
there are in fact only two practical silvicultural systems
appropriate for the establishment and maintenance of bottomland
hardwood forests: clearcut and plant, or clearcut and natural
regeneration. For those industries that depend heavily on
hardwood fiber for their products, intensively managed hardwood
plantations offer an expensive, but effective alternative.
However, today there are no more than one or two companies in
the Southeast who practice this method and no more than five
thousand acres are being regenerated in this fashion.
By far the most preferred silvicultural system is that of
clearcutting and natural regeneration. There are at least 75
commercially important species that grow well within the
hardwood forest—all of them are shade intolerant and require
full sunlight to reproduce and grow. Thus, the best way to
regenerate a mature bottomland hardwood forest is to cut it
clear (i.e., cutting down every stem that is more than two
inches in diameter). If a full amd complete clearcut is
made, most of the stumps will sprout to provide the new
forest. About 75 of all new regeneration is of sprout origin;
the rest comes from seed. In most cases natural regeneration
will result in too many rather than too few stems (e.g., stem
counts of 50,000 trees per acre are not uncommon) and some
stocking control measures may have to be applied.
-103-
-------
Almost any size opening will result in a satisfactory initial
reproduction, but subsequent growth and development is strongly
influenced by the size of the clearcut. The larger the opening,
the smaller the perimeter is in relation to the exposed area,
and thus fewer trees will be affected by shade and competition
from the surrounding stand. On small tracts these openings may
be only three to five acres in size; on large timber tracts
they may measure up to 50 acres. In any case, the openings
should be large enough to be recognizable as distinct stands in
order to simplify subsequent inventories, cultural treatment,
and harvesting.
It is the industry's position that a well managed bottomland
hardwood forest, including the mosaic of clearcut patches, is
the best way to perpetuate the resource, provide tangible
benefits in terms of usable fiber, as well as the intangible
amenity values of good wildlife habitat and recreation. And
finally, the maintenance of a vigorous and healthy bottomland
forest preserves the very important hydrologic function of
the bottomlands.
CONVERSION OF WETLANDS TO AGRICULTURE IN GEORGIA
Since the mid 1950's, agriculture in the southern states has
grown.about four times faster than the rest of the country.
Most of this increased production has been soybeans. This
section examines the role of agriculture and the U.S. Soil
Conservation Service in conversion of bottomland hardwood
wetlands to farming in Georgia. Although the clearing of
bottomland hardwoods in Georgia is occurring at a slower rate
than Mississippi Valley states, the issues are the same.
There are about four million acres of wetlands in Georgia;
80% are in the Southern Coastal Plain and the Atlantic Coast
Flatwoods regions in south Georgia and 20% occur in north
Georgia above the Fall line. Statewide, about 12,000 acres
of wetlands (some bottomland hardwoods) are being converted
for agricultural, urban, industrial, transportation, and
other uses annually. In agricultural areas, wetlands losses
are generally to cropland, pastureland, and pine monoculture
in south Georgia and to cropland and pastureland in the
northern part of the state.
During the early 1970s, the rising price of oil resulted in
trade deficits, and farmers were told to "farm fencerow to
fencerow" to supply agricultural products for foreign markets.
As a result, marginal, highly erodible land was cleared and
brought into production. Drainage was improved on existing
cropland. Wetlands were cleared and drained.
-104-
-------
Irrigation systems, were installed at a fast pace during the
1970s. Between 1970 and 1981, the irrigated cropland acreage in
Georgia grew from under 100,000 acres to over 1,000,000 acres.
The primary system installed was the center-pivot system, which,
to be economical, require large contiguous acreage (i.e. 200-
to 300-acre fields). Small wetland areas, bays, and heads of
drains were cleared to facilitate the movement and effectiveness
of these systems. Impacts on wetlands when examined as a case-
by-case basis are small, but when all fields are considered
cumulative impacts are significant.
Crop yields on many drained bottomland hardwood wetland soils
are comparable to upland soils, but some wetland soils provide
the most productive croplands. In cleared bottomland areas
with drainage, corn, grain sorghum, soybeans, vegetables,
pasture, and pine trees are grown; without drainage, pastures,
pine tree monoculture, and an occasional late-planted soybean
or grain sorghum crop is possible.
Landclearing and the conversion of woodlands to cropland has
decreased in Georgia, due in part to economics. The expense
of farming, landclearing, landleveling, and drainage, coupled
with low prices for farm products, has slowed the landclearing
trend. The average cost of drainage is about $600 per acre,
excluding the cost ,of outlets, pumping stations, and surface
drainage.
ROLE OF THE SOIL CONSERVATION SERVICE
The Soil Conservation Service (SCS) supports the proposition
that wetlands should be preserved and managed in ways that
are in balance with the Nation's total needs. The policy,
procedures, and actions of the agency reflect this position.
Although landowners may voluntarily participate in SCS
programs, they cannot be forced to do anything. SCS attempts
to guide their decisions through on-site technical assistance
in developing conservation plans and applying conservation
practices. Over the years, SCS has responded to public
concerns. The first of many policy statements on wildlife
habitat conservation came out in 1935—the year SCS became an
agency.
SCS still uses U.S. Fish and Wildlife Circular 39 to classify
wetlands. Under present policy, no SCS assistance is provided
on construction in wetland classes 3-20 except when the State
-105-
-------
Conservationist grants written exemptions on a case-by-case
basis. Also, SCS assistance within classes 1 and 2 (which
includes less frequently flooded bottomland hardwoods) is
available only under certain criteria. An environmental
evaluation is required in all of the above-mentioned cases.
The conversion of wetlands has decreased in Georgia during
the past few years and one of the reasons is that irrigation
acreage growth has increased by less than one percent annually
since 1981. But as the world population increases, additional
conversion of wetlands to cropland will probably take place,
particularly on types 1 and 2.
ECONOMIC INCENTIVES FOR CONVERSION TO AGRICULTURE
There is considerable interest in land use issues related to
bottomland hardwood habitat, particularly why land use conver-
sion takes place. The primary alternative use for these forests
is agriculture and it appears that conversion occurs largely in
response to economic incentives. Discussed below are the market
forces providing incentives for conversion, the additional
economic incentives for conversion provided by public policy,
and alternative public policy actions that could be used to
offset existing conversion incentives.
Market Forces
Much of the bottomland hardwood acreage converted to farmland
in recent years is now being used to produce soybeans. A
1974 Forest Service timber resource survey in Louisiana
alluvial counties showed that 80 percent of the bottomland
hardwood forest acreage cleared for agriculture was devoted
to soybeans. This is largely due to what was until recently
a growing export market for soybeans. Also, soybeans are
particularly well suited for production in low lying areas
because they can be planted until late June in areas subject
to spring flooding.
Comparing the economic returns to soybean farming to the returns
to timber production, it is clear why private landowners have
opted for such land use changes. An intensive study from the
late 1970's reported that per acre economic returns to soybean
production were about twice that for timber production. More
recent data suggest that the difference in returns may be less,
but soybeans will likely continue to be more profitable than
timber in the future.
-106-
-------
PUBLIC POLICIES MAY ENCOURAGE CONVERSION
In addition to the private economic incentives for conversion,
there are a number of existing public policies which appear
to make conversion more profitable for landowners than would
otherwise be the case. While there has been very little
empirical research on these public policy effects, economic
theory suggests several hypotheses:
0 Price support programs. Price support programs provide
minimum price and income levels for a number of major
crops. Although soybeans have only a normally effective
price support program, there have been levels of price
supports for wheat and rice, which are frequently grown
in rotation with soybeans. By raising expected farm
income and reducing price and income variability, price
support programs likely make individuals more willing
to invest inland clearing and make lenders more willing
to provide financing for such clearing.
0 Crop insurance. Crop insurance was expanded in 1980 to
become the major form of publicly subsidized disaster
production for farmers. Federal crop insurance insures
farmers against yield losses from a number of natural
causes, including flooding. This risk reduction probably
encourages more farming in flood prone areas.
0 Low interest loans. Low interest loans are available
to farmers through the Farmers Home Administration and
the Small Business Administration. By lowering the
cost of capital, these programs increase the demand for
farmland and may raise the incentives to convert
bottomland forests.
0 Income tax policy. The income tax code allows farmers
and corporations to reduce their conversion costs. In
addition to the tax credits and depreciation available
for other types of investments, current tax law allows
specific deductions for land clearing and drainage
costs (U.S. Department of the Treasury).
0 Drainage and flood control. Drainage and flood control
projects of the Soil Conservation Service and Crops of
Engineers increase the productivity of low lying farmland
by improving drainage and reduce the risk of flood
damage to crops. There is good evidence that drainage
and flood control projects often preceed the conversion
of bottomland forests to cropland.
More research is needed to establish the extent of these
policy impacts on the converstion process.
-107-
-------
Public Policies To Reduce Conversion Incentives
If the public wants to reduce the conversion incentives
provided by market and policy forces, there are several
measures which could be taken. However, there would first
need to be a clear statement of goals from Congress. If
policy goals are articulated, there are a number of policy
changes which could be implemented.
1. Farm program benefits could be denied for land newly
converted from bottomland forests. There is a precedent
for this in the Sodbuster Bill which in the last year
was passed by both houses of Congress but never got out
of conference committee. The Sodbuster Bill would
prevent farmers from receiving price supports, crop
insurance, and government loans in connection with
farming fragile land recently brought into production.
2. Another action would be to reform the tax code to eliminate
deductions which favor conversion.
3. A third action would be to provide incentive payments or
tax credits which would help offset the foregone income
of those who do not convert.
4. A forth option would be outright purchase of bottomland
hardwood forests by federal and state governments or
groups such as the Nature Conservancy. There is already
considerable use being made of this option (e.g., the
Pascagoula River tract in southeast Mississippi and the
Lower Hatchie River Bottomlands area Tennessee).
5. A cheaper alternative to land purchase would be the
purchase of development rights which would leave the
land in private hands while compensating landowners for
voluntarily giving up the right to alter their land
use.
6. A regulatory approach could be taken which would prohibit
further conversions by taking a social rather than private
accounting stance. Conversions might be disallowed as
long as there were alternative non-bottomland sites
available which would enable farmers to earn a reasonable
rate of return. However, a regulatory approach alone
might do nothing more than offset some of the other
policy impacts discussed earlier.
-108-
-------
CONCLUSIONS
Market forces encourage the conversion of bottomland forests
to farmland for producing soybeans and other crops. It is
likely that a variety of public programs reinforce these market
incentives by making it more profitable or less risky to clear
and drain the forests. Congress recently appropriated funds
for the Department of the Interior to study wetland losses and
the role of Federal programs in reducing these losses. The fo-
cus will be on bottomland hardwoods of the lower Missississippi
Valley. The study will culminate in a report to Congress re-
commending management alternatives which the Federal government
can undertake to preserve wetlands.
-109-
-------
WORKSHOP C
A CASE STUDY OF THE APPLICATION OF
BOTTOMLAND HARDWOODS COMMUNITY MODELS
Wiley M. Kitchens, Section Leader
Community Profiles and Community Modeling
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
National Coastal Ecosystem Team
Slidell, LA
-------
WILEY M. KITCHENS
WILEY M. KITCHENS is an estuarine ecologist in the National
Coastal Ecosystems Team (NCET) of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service (FWS). He received a Ph.D. in wetland/estuarine ecology
from North Carolina State University and served as a research
associate at the University of South Carolina for six years.
His research interests are nutrient dynamics and successions in
wetland ecosystems. Dr. Kitchens has been involved in directing
an FWS publication series, "Community Profiles," which synthesizes
information pertinent to the ecology of selected wetlands.
More recently he has developed a succession modeling approach
to impact assessment of altered hydrology to wetland ecosystems.
The paper presented here is a summary explanation of the pilot
effort in the application of a bottomland hardwood forest
succession model.
-110-
-------
LEONARD PEARLSTINE
LEONARD PEARLSTINE is employed as an ecosystems modeler at NCET
through an Intergovernmental Personnel Act agreement with the
University of South Carolina. He earned his master's degreee
in a project that involves a "net energy analysis" of the
Santee/Cooper Rediversion Project which is the subject of the
following paper. Mr. Pearlstine is the author of the succession
simulation model (FORFLO) that was used in this study. He is
currently involved in the application of FORFLO and the production
of similar models for other wetlands.
-Ill-
-------
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
DEVELOPMENT OF A BOTTOMLAND FOREST SUCCESSION SIMULATION MODEL
AND ITS APPLICATION TO THE SANTEE-COOPER RIVER REDIVERSION PROJECT, S. C.
prepared by
Wiley Kitchens
and
Leonard Pearlstine
National Coastal Ecosystems Team
Research and Development
U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service
1010 Gause Boulevard
SIidell, LA. 70458
-112-
-------
Acknowledgments
The National Coastal Ecosystems Team, and the authors of this report in
particular, would like to thank the following persons:
Dr. Hank McKellar and Dr. Jim Williams as well as their graduate
students at the University of South Carolina, Department of
Environmental Health Sciences, for their extensive examination of
impacts from the Santee-Cooper Rediversion Project focusing on the
forested floodplan;
Dr. David Cowen and his graduate students, especially Jeff Booth, at
the University of South Carolina, Social and Behavioral Sciences
Laboratory, for their work in gathering base-line elevation data and
producing the map products needed to complete this study.
This work was supported in part by USFWS Cooperative Agreement Number
14-16-0009-80-994; Wiley Kitchens, Project Officer.
-113-
-------
INTRODUCTION
The U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service is developing and using several
methodologies to assist the resource manager in accurately anticipating the
consequences of development or environmental management decisions. They
include publications that synthesize ecological information at the broad
regional level (Characterizations), at the specific estuarine system level
(Estuarine Profiles), and at the community/habitat level (Community
Profiles). Technological aids range from computerized cartography (the Map
Overlay and Statistical System and the Cartographic Output System) to
computerized species-response curve indices (the Habitat Evaluation
Procedure). One of the latest technologies to be developed at the Fish and
Wildlife Service is the use of mathematical modeling to predict community or
habitat succession resulting from an environmental impact.
Objectives
This report reviews the development and application of a bottomland
forest succession model (FORFLO). The objectives of this application are to
be able (1) to synthesize tree species growth responses and interactions at
the ecosystems level, (2) to predict the impacts of a changing waterflow
-114-
-------
regime on tree species composition, and (3) to complement Habitat Suitability
Indices by providing future forecasts of canopy closure, mast production, and
other variables which depend on forest successional stage and are used by the
indices.
Applications
To examine its effectiveness and practical application, the FORFLO model was
used to predict the consequences resulting from a river diversion impacting a
floodplain forest community in South Carolina. The results of that study are
reviewed in this report. In addition, FORFLO is currently being implemented
along the Lower Atchafalaya River, Louisiana, where a combination of river
building, natural subsidence, and levee construction by the U. S. Army Corps
of Engineers complicates predictions of species change. FORFLO will also soon
be implemented to assist management decisions in the greentree reservoir at
Felsenthal National Refuge in Arkansas.
-115-
-------
DEVELOPMENT OF THE MODEL
The FORFLO bottomland forest succession model is a modification of an
uplands deciduous forest simulator designed by Botkin et al. (1972a, 1972b)
at Yale University, School of Forestry, and further developed by Shugart and
West (1977) at the Oak Ridge National Laboratories, Tennessee. FORFLO and its
predecessors simulate the growth, reproduction, and competition of each tree
in a mixed species forest stand.
Moisture appears to be the most critical factor of the selective
pressures influencing the distribution of forest species within a floodplan
(Hook and Brown 1973; Teskey and Hinckley 1978; Bedinger 1978). Species are
distributed along moisture gradients as a result of their tolerance to flood
*
duration and frequency (Bedinger 1971; Johnson and Bell 1976). FORFLO differs
from the earlier models primarily in the incorporation of moisture
regime influences on species selection. More detailed soil relationships have
also been added.
Figure 1 is a pictorial representation of the parameters that influence
species presence and growth in the model. Temperature is represented in the
model by the degree-days of a site. The range of a species is determined by
its maximum and minimum degree-day requirements, and it is assumed that the
species will grow best at the center of its range. Shading and crowding are
two measures of competition among trees on a site which may reduce their
growth. Water table depth also influences species growth. Trees are entered
-116-
-------
FIGURE 1.
BOTTOMLAND FOREST MODELLING INTERACTIONS
7)TEMPERATURE
T> SHADING
3 CROWDING
T) RIVER FLOW
& FLOODING
BROWSING
6) STUMP SPROUTS
T) SEEDLINGS
DEPTH TO WATER TABLE
7) ORGANIC: MINERAL SOIL CONTENT
®SOIL TEXTURE: CLAY, LOAM, OR SAND
) ORGANIC EXPORT
-------
into the model either as seedlings or sprouts. Flood duration, browsing, and
soil variables reduce or enhance successful recruitment. A tree's probability
of dying increases as that tree approaches the maximum age for the species.
Trees also have a high probability of death in the model when their growth
slows to less than 10% of the species optimum growth at the same age. The
model tracks the species, diameter-breast-height (DBH), and age of each tree
on the simulated plot from the time the tree enters the plot as a seedling or
sprout until it is "killed."
Depth to the water table or height and duration of flooding on a site is
calculated from detailed elevation data from the study area and from an
equation relating river flow to water stage. For the Santee-Cooper River
Rediversion study, elevation data were obtained from 15-minute and 7.5-minute
USGS quadrangles containing the study area (Figure 2), the U. S. Coast and
Geodetic Survey, and the U. S. Army Corps of Engineers (floodplain cross-
sections, bank-to-bank profiles, and logging road traverses). An equation to
determine river stage at any location in the Santee flooplain study area was
derived from U. S. Army Corps of Engineers hydrographs relating river flow to
river stage at both ends of the study area.
-117-
-------
Rediversion Site
Lake Mattassee
Georgetown
Stephens
Jamestown
0 10 20
Kilometers
Atlantic Ocean
Charleston Harbor
FIGURE 2.
Location Map
-------
A CASE STUDY OF WATER CONTROL
OPTIONS FOR THE SANTEE-COOPER
RIVER REOIVERSION, S. C.
Hydrologies! regimes of the Santee River currently and after the
rediversion were applied to the FORFLO model to test its effectiveness and
demonstrate its usefulness to the resource manager.
Diversion
The Santee River, South Carolina, was once the fourth largest river on
the east coast with average annual flows of 17,500 cubic feet per second
(cfs). In 1941 the South Carolina Public Service Authority diverted 88% of
the Santee's flow through two newly created lakes and into the Cooper River in
order to develop hydroelectric power potential (Figure 2). After the 1941
diversion the Cooper River had a discharge of approximately 150 times its
former flow rate, and the Santee River carried only 10% of its former flow,
Diversion Effects
Since the diversion, a bottomland hardwood forest has matured along most
of the length of the Santee's oversized floodplain. High flows on the Cooper
River after the diversion carry large quantities of sediments which have
created shoaling problems in the navigation channels in Charleston Harbor.
Maintenance of the main navigation channels in the harbor requires intensive
year-round dredging. The U. S. Army Corps of Engineers, the South Carolina
Ports Authority, and the United States Navy dredge an average total volume of
-118-
-------
about 10.2 million cubic yards of sediment from the harbor per year (U. S.
Army -Corps of Engineers 1966). Dredging currently costs about $1.00/yd3
(J. Saddler 1981, S. C. Ports Authority, Charleston; personal communication)
or $10.2 million dollars per year to maintain Charleston Harbor.
Proposed Redlversion
To alleviate this shoaling problem and the associated dredging cost, the
Army Corps of Engineers was authorized by Congress in 1968 to redivert most of
the water flow back into the Santee River. The rediversion involves
construction of in 18.5-km long canal from Lake Marion back into the Santee
River (Figure 2). An additional hydropower plant is being constructed on the
rediversion canal near St. Stephen to take advantage of some of the remaining
hydrostatic head. For the Cooper River, the Army Corps of Engineers has
stipulated (preliminarily) that a weekly average flow of 3,000 cfs must not be
exceeded if shoaling in Charleston Harbor is to be effectively reduced (U. S.
Army Corps of Engineers 1975). The magnitudes of changes in mean annual
discharge patterns between the 1941 diversion project and the planned
rediversion are summarized in Table 1.
Table 1. — Annual Average Flow Regimes for
the Santee and Cooper Rivers
TIME
Before Diversion in 1941
After Diversion
After Planned Rediversion
Cooper River
100
15500
3000
Flow (cfs)*
Santee River
17500
2000
14500
-119-
-------
Effects of Proposed Rediversion
In the first phase of this study, McKellar et al. (1984) examined a wide
range of environmental and economic impacts that might result from the
rediversion project. Among their findings were (1) possible negative impacts
on industrial and municipal water supply along the heavily populated Cooper
River, (2) negative impacts to shell fisheries in the Santee River Delta,
(3) possible positive impacts on waterfowl in the Santee River deltaic
marshes, and (4) some concern about the possible impacts to anadromous
fishes. The majority of their study, however, focused on the floodplain
forest of the Santee River. The floodplain represents a major ecological
feature of the coastal plain which will be impacted by the rediversion. Their
studies suggested that the rediversion as planned would inundate much of the
Santee floodplain and result in an extensive decline in the bottomland forest.
Modified Rediversion
McKellar et al. suggested that loss of floodplain productivity may be
decreased substantially if, during the critical early months of the growing
season (April, May, June, July), the power plant on the rediversion canal
would be operated with just one of its three turbines. This would allow a
maximum of 8,000 cfs to pass through the rediversion canal; the rest of the
flow would be shunted to the Cooper River.
-120-
-------
Comparison of Redlversion Water-Release Alternatives
The seasonal patterns of river flow for present conditions and for the
rediversion options discussed above are given in Figure 3. These long-term
average trends indicate a winter-spring period of high flow and a summer-fall
period of low flow. After the rediversion, the Santee River would be returned
to within 80% of its original (pre-diversion) flow rate. Seasonal patterns
would include both flood stages and periods of low flow. Cooper River flows
would be held at a weekly 3,000 cfs average as stipulated by the Corps. The
results of the modified rediversion proposed by McKellar et al. would reduce
flow to the Santee during the early growing season with a corresponding
increase on the Cooper during these months (Figure 3).
In addition to these seasonal trends, there would be large-scale daily
and weekly fluctuations caused by peak-demand operation patterns of the new
hydroplant. One scenario for water release into the Santee (U. S. Army Corps
of Engineers 1976) stipulates a discharge of 24,500 cfs for 15 hr during the
day and zero discharge for 9 hr at night. Weekend schedules would be modified
to a 5-hr discharge of 16,400 cfs during mid-day with zero discharge for the
remainder of the day.
Model Validation on the Santee Floodplain
To test how well the model performs, FORFLO was set up with a species mix
wetter than at present, and characteristic of conditions on the Santee flood-
plain prior to the original diversion. The model was then allowed to
simulate conditions through time up to the present. The model results were
-121-
-------
FIGURE 3.
SEASONAL DISCHARGE PATTERNS FOR THE SANTEE-COOPER RIVERS
30-
I?
10-
PRESENT
SANTEE RIVER
30-
20-
10-
REDIVERSION
AS PROPOSED
COOPER RIVER
30-
20-
10-
REDIVERSION
MODIFIED
0 '.....- .*-F^-^-T . . ' 0 •—i—i—i—r—i—i—i—i—i—i—i—* 0 L—i—i—i—i—i—i—i—i—i—.
J'F'M'A'M1 J 'J'A'S'O'N1 D J 'F 'M'A'M1 J ' J 'A1 S'O'N 'D J 'F'M1 A'M1 J 'J ' A'S 'O'N1 D
-------
then compared to field surveys of a site on the Santee floodplain (Parks and
Williams 1983). The results are shown in Figure 4. Importance values, as
given by Curtis (1959), are used in the figure to describe forest
composition. Importance values are the sum of relative density, relative
frequency, and relative dominance.
The species listed along the bottom of the graph in Figure 4 are all the
species that were available to the model. Two points should be observed in
the figure. The first is how well the species selected by the model agree
with observed species in the field site. The second is how well the model
tracks the relative importance of each of the species. From personal
observation, however, we know baldcypress (Taxodium distichum) is present on
the site although it doesn't appear in the site survey. Also, loblolly pine
(Pinus taeda), although not found on the site, is common on plots with similar
flood regimes on South Carolina floodplains.
Model Simulations of the Santee-Cooper Rediversion
Both the proposed and the modified rediversions were simulated along a
15.6 mile reach of the Santee River forested floodplain from the rediversion
site downstream to Jamestown (Figure 2). In the proposed rediversion, flow to
the Santee River from Lake Marion remains the same, flow to the Cooper River
is reduced to 3,000 cfs as stipulated by the U. S. Army Corps of Engineers,
and the remaining flow is added to the Santee River flow via the rediversion
canal. The modified rediversion is the same as the first except that during
the early growing season (April-July) flow through the rediversion canal is
reduced to that which can pass through one turbine of the power plant on the
-122-
-------
o
o
CO
0000000
oor^cD^^t co CM
LU
DC
g
u_
o o
8 e
RED MAPLE
IRONWOOD
WATER HICKORY
MOCKERNUT HICKORY
SUGARBERRY
DOGWOOD
BEECH
GREEN ASH
YELLOW-POPLAR
SWEETGUM
WATER TUPELO
SWAMP TUPELO
SHORTLEAF PINE
LOBLOLLY PINE
E. COTTONWOOD
SYCAMORE
WHITE OAK
S. RED OAK
LAUREL OAK
OVERCUP OAK
SWAMP CHESTNUT
WATER OAK
BLACK WILLOW
SASSAFRAS
BALDCYPRESS
AMERICAN ELM
BLACK CHERRY
oooooooooo
ooor^-cDin^-cocMi-
S3ITIVA 30NViaOdl/MI
-------
canal. This option allows flow to exceed 3,000 cfs on the Cooper River only
during these four months of the growing season. Thus, the modified rediversion
attempts to preserve the bottomland forest in the Santee floodplain by
reducing flooding during the trees1 critical growth period.
Maps of the area! extent of present habitat types compared to the two
options as predicted by the FORFLO model are shown in Figure 5. The immature
bottomland forest (bottomland shrub/scrub) covering so much area in the
present-conditions map is.the result of clearcutting by landowners in antici-
pation of rediversion. Most striking in these maps is the loss of bottomland
forest to open water: a 97% loss of bottomland hardwoods for the proposed
rediversion or an only slightly improved 94% loss for the modified rediversion.
The difference in the two options is primarily that bottomland hardwoods under
the modified rediversion scenario are more likely to succeed to cypress-tupelo,
rather than open water, thus maintaining a forest cover. The acreage of the
habitat types under the three conditions is shown in Table 2. It should be
noted that the open water classification only means that the moisture regime
is too wet to support forest cover. The classification does not necessarily
mean there must be standing water on the site all year, although the soil
will always be saturated. Much of this area may support emergent vegetation
or very moisture-tolerant shrubs such as buttonbush (Cephalanthus
occidental is).
Table 2. -- Habitat Types in the Santee River Floodplain Study Area
Open Water
Cypress-Tupelo
Bottomland Hardwoods
Present
1,835
4,847
18,193
Acres
Proposed
Rediversion
16,444
4,739
635
Modified
Rediversion
7,561
13,621
1,030
-------
-------
CONCLUSION
From the two rediversion alternatives examined, the FORFLO model
indicated that large tracts of bottomland hardwood habitat would be lost.
However, the modified rediversion plan, based on reduced waterflow during the
growing season, maintained a forest cover primarily as cypress-tupelo. This
project thus demonstrated that mathematical modeling can be successfully
employed to synthesize complex ecological relationships for the study of
successional trends. The integration in this project of ecological modeling
and spatial mapping has provided a valuable tool to the resources manager who
needs to forecast the extent of change a floodplain modification may bring
about.
The U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service is further extending the capability
of the FORFLO model by incorporating the calculation of Habitat Suitability
Indices for forest species. This merging of the two technologies will allow
for future forecasting of HSI values both temporally and specially.
Bottomland forest wetlands are ecologically and economically important
for wildlife habitat, timber resources, detrital output to downstream marshes,
downstream flood mitigation, water quality improvement, and scenic quality.
Predictive models such as FORFLO allow resource managers to protect these
wetlands currently being stressed nationwide by development and agriculture.
-123-
-------
REFERENCES
Bedinger, M.S. 1971. Forest species as indicators of flooding in the lower
White River Valley, Arkansas. U.S. Geol. Surv. Prof. Pap. 750-C: C248-253.
Bedinger, M.S. 1978. Relation between forest species and flooding. In
P.E. Greeson, J.R. Clark and J. E. Clark, eds. Wetland functions and
values: the state of our understanding; American Water Resources
Association, Minneapolis, Minn.
Botkin, D.B., J.F. Janak, and J.R. Wallis: 1972a. Rationale, limitations, and
assumptions of a northeastern forest growth simulator. IBM J. Res.
Develop. 16:101-116.
Botkin, D.B., J.R. Janak, and J.R. Wallis. 1972b. Some ecological consequences
of a computer model of forest growth. J. Ecol. 60:849-873.
Curtis, J.T. 1959. The vegetation of Wisconsin and ordination of plant
communities. University of Wisconsin Press, Madison. 657 pp.
Hook, D.D., and C.L. Brown 1973. Root adaptations and relative flood tolerance
of five hardwood species. For. Sci. 19:225-229.
Johnson, F.L., and D.T. Bell 1976. Plant biomass and net primary production
along a flood-freqency gradient in the streamside forest. Casternea
41(2):156-165.
McKellar, H.N., J. Booth, L. Pearlstine, and D. Cowen 1984. Conceptual models
and energy analysis of river flow modifications - A case study of water
control options for the Santee-Cooper River Rediversion, S.C. Final
report to the U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service, National Coastal Ecosystems
Team, SIidell, La.
Parks, W., and J. Williams, 1983. Preliminary results of forest stand analysis
and litter production estimates: Santee River floodplain forest, 1983.
Unpublished paper, University of South Carolina, Department of Environ-
mental Health Sciences, Columbia.
Shugart, H.H., and D.C. West 1977. Development of an Appalachian deciduous
forest model and its application to assessment of the impact of the
chestnut blight. J. Environ. Manage. 5:161-179.
Teskey, R.O., and T.M. Hinckley 1977. Impact of water level changes on woody
riparian and wetland communities. Vol. II: Southern forest region.
U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service FWS/OBS-77/59.
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers 1966. Survey report on Cooper River, S.C.
(Shoaling in Charleston Harbor). Charleston District, Charleston, S.C.
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers 1975. The final environmental statement, Cooper
River rediversion project. Charleston District, Charleston, S.C.
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers 1976. Design Memorandum No. 9. Charleston
District, Charleston, S.C.
-124-
-------
WORKSHOP D
ENVIRONMENTAL AUDIT
John C. Nemeth, Manager
Hazardous and Industrial Waste
Management Programs
Georgia Tech Research Institute
Georgia Institute of Technology
Atlanta, GA
Roger N. Schecter
Director
Pollution Prevention Pays
Division of Environmental Management
Department of Natural Resources and
Community Development
State of North Carolina
Raleigh, NC
Leonard J. Fleckenstein
Environmental Auditing Project Manager
Regulatory Reform Staff
U.S. EPA
Washington, D.C.
-------
BENEFITS AND COMPONENTS OF AN
ENVIRONMENTAL AUDIT
John C. Nemeth, Ph.D., C.E.P., Manager
Hazardous and Industrial Waste Management Program
Georgia Tech Research Institute
Over the past several years the concept of the environmental audit has grown
and developed into a major tool for the holistic focusing of many technologies
toward a centralized approach to achieving environmental and human protection.
This concept possesses several facets which are of importance to both the
regulator and regulated communities. Corporate liability awareness for accidental
events and long-term pollution effects, financial and organization planning, and
personnel matters, as well as regulatory compliance benefits will accrue to the
industrial sector, while the regulatory agencies have a mode of monitoring
compliance in a potentially less adversary mode.
The fundamental characteristic of environmental audit which industry must
recognize and appreciate is that corporate needs, quite independent from
environmental policy associated with any given administration and regulations, are
served and result in clear influences on business profitability and success.
The following outline is provided as a checklist of why audit through how to
audit.
* WHY AUDIT *
• Management Tool
- Cost-Effective Compliance
- Risk Management
• Preventing Violations
- Early Warning Systems
- Identifying Liabilities
- Company Compliance Profile
- Reporting and Recordkeeping
• Plan for Growth
- New Facilities
- Siting Constraints
- Preconstruction Review
- Plant Modifications
- Acquiring New Plants
- Mergers & Spin-Offs
- Estimating Compliance Costs
• Response to Regulations
- Permits & Renewals
- SEC Disclosure Requirements
- Inspections
- Enforcement Orders
- Rulemaking Participation
-125-
-------
- Emergencies
The Intangibles
- Employee Satisfaction
- Public Image
- Community Commitment
* AUDIT PLANNING *
The Audit Team
- In-House Expertise
- Top Management
- Audit Leader
- Plant Personnel
- Engineers
- Accountants
- Toxicologists
- Environmental Scientists
- Safety Professionals
- Consultants
- Special Skills
- Anticipated Cost
- Their Contribution
- Legal Assistance
- Confidentiality
- Interpreting Regulations
- Liabilities
- Computer
- Data Analysis
- Cost Projections
- Compliance Alternatives
Scope of Review
- Strategy
- Multiple Site Audits
- Corporate-Wide Audits
- Components
- Compliance Profile
- Cost-Saving Opportunities
- Management Planning
Subject Areas
- Facilities
- Pollutants
- Regulatory Requirements
- Maintenance Procedures
- Contingency Plans
- Growth Plans
- Transportation Methods
- Risk Factors
- Personnel Assignments
-126-
-------
Financial Considerations
- Compliance Costs
- Tax Incentives
- Govt. Assistance
- Accounting Treatment
- Audit Costs
- Frequency Determination
* REGULATORY REQUIREMENTS *
Environmental Controls
- Clean Water Act
- Clean Air Act
- Resource Conservation &. Recovery Act
- Toxic Substances Control Act
- Superfund
- Safe Drinking Water
- Underground Injection
- OSHA
- Other Federal Laws
- State & Local Laws
- Permit Terms and Schedules
- Administrative Orders
- Court Rulings
On-Site Obligations
- Air Emissions
- Water Discharges
- Land & Facilities
- Raw Materials
- Products
- Wastes
- Treatment
- Storage
- Disposal
- Underground Injection
- Transport Vehicles
- Shipping Facilities
- Records
* CONDUCTING THE AUDIT *
Fact Finding
- Sources
- Accident Reports
- Permits & Applications
- Monitoring Reports
- Spill Plans
- Substantial Risk Reporting
- Product Safety Data
- Health Effects Data
-127-
-------
- Response Plans
- Training Programs
- Shipping Manifests
- Waste Flow Diagrams
- Process Information
- Treatment Technology
- Financial
- Citizen Complaints
- Questionnaires
- Who
- What
- General Facility Information
- Identify Specifics
- Follow-Up
- Interviewing
- What To Look For
- On-Site Personnel
- Consultants
- Regulatory Personnel
- Equipment Manufacturers
- Engineering Advisors
- Facilities Design Staff
- Community Groups
- Finding Hidden Issues
- Site Visits
- Benefits
- Contacts
- What To Look For
- Latent Conditions
Protecting Confidentiality
- Public Disclosure Risks
- Attorney/Client Privileges
- Work Product Doctrine
- Consultant Reports
- Effect on R&D Work
- Submittals To Agencies
Audit Checklist
- Products
- Raw Materials
- Chemical Substances
- Volume
- Characteristics
- By-Products & Wastes
- Production
- Treatment
- Handling
- Storage
- Physical Layout
- Maps
- Flow Diagrams
- Monitoring Points
-128-
-------
- Discharge Points
- Treatment Areas
- Storage Areas
- Disposal Areas
- Shipping Facilities
- Regulated Activities
- Compliance Status
- Immediate Actions
- Projected Problems
- Costs of Control
- Capital
- Operating
- Sampling & Analysis
- In-house Capability
- Commercial Laboratories
- Quality Control
- Level of Effect
Points of Discharge
- Air
- Stacks & Vents
- Fugitive Emissions
- Water
- Pipes & Conduits
- Non-Point Run-Off
- Sewers & Ditches
- Dilution Issues
- Land
- Treatment
- Storage
- Disposal
- Underground Injection
- Groundwater Leaching
- Spills
- Enforcement & Litigation
- Pending
- Potential
- Strategies
Maintenance Procedures
- Consistent Routines
- "Human Error" Factors
- Training Programs
- Recording Logs
- Scheduling Techniques
* USING THE AUDIT *
Analyzing the Results
- Organizing
- Order of Priority
-129-
-------
- Violations
- Facts vs. Opinions
- Analytical Team
- Statistical Approaches
- Compliance Profile
- The Multi-Site Company
- The Single Plant
- Preparing the Audit Report
- Compliance Status
- Cost Estimates
- Recommendations
- Presentation to Management
- Candor
- Management Targets
- Record Retention
Applying the Results
- Cost Savings
- Implementation
- Establishing Priorities
- Modify vs. Rebuild
- Heading Off Trouble
.- Management Protection
- Liability for Employee Acts
- Potential Criminal Liability
- Permit Certifications
- Statutory Reports
- SEC Disclosures
- Early Warning Systems
- Corporate Response Plan
- Scope & Purpose
- Staffing
- Internal Communications
- External Communications
- How Much/How Soon
- Environmental Data Management
- Computers
- Follow-Up
- Acquisitions
- Limiting Liability
- Indemnification
- Responsibility for Clean-Up
- Mergers & Sales
- Management Implications
- Litigation Support
- Administrative Proceedings
- Influencing Regulation
- Public Relations
Coordinating Compliance
- EPA/OSHA Inspections
- Right to Inspect
- Narrowing the Scope
-130-
-------
- Protecting Your Rights
- Injunctions & Penalties
- Contesting the Results
- Inspection Plans
Streamlined Reporting
- Monitoring Reports
- Recordkeeping
Obtaining Permits
- Applications
- Renewals
- Procedures
- Consolidated Permits
- Efficient Practices
Risk Management
- Responsibility Requirements
- Liability Assessment
- Insurance
- Self-Insurance
- Third Party Liabilities
Litigation
- Avoiding
- Prosecuting
- Defending
Regulatory Benefits
- Going Beyond Compliance
- Updating
-131-
-------
ROGER N. SCHECTER
ROGER N. SCHECTER holds graduate degrees from UNC-Greensboro in
Ecology and from UNC-Chapel Hill in Planning and Public
Administration. He is a full member of the American Institute
of Certified Planners and served as Chapter President for North
Carolina. He has fifteen years of experience in environmental
planning and management as a consultant and with public agencies,
He has worked on water and land resources projects on several
nationwide studies, organized the first central permitting
office in North Carolina, and prepared numerous reports on
environmental issues across the State. Currently, as Director
of the Pollution Prevention Pays Program, he is responsible for
the planning and development of a unique governmental program
in environmental management for multi-media waste reduction.
-132-
-------
Roger N. Schecter, Director
Pollution Prevention Pays Program
North Carolina Department of Natural Resources
and Community Development
Division of Environmental Management
Thank you for the opportunity to talk about the state's
interest in Environmental Auditing and our pollution preven-
tion program. I would like to share with you why the Department
of Natural Resources and Community Development is encouraging
the use of Environmental Auditing, how auditing fits into our
regulatory program, and who in North Carolina is trying
auditing now. I will also be discussing the work of our ad-
visory group called the North Carolina Environmental Auditing
Roundtable. First, let me say that the department's policy
is to encourage economic development — just as long as it
does not harm the environment. In the work of the NC 2000
report, our natural resources are both a primary foundation
for our economy and a rich natural heritage. I believe that
we all — state government, private industry, local government
and citizens — recognize our stewardship obligation toward
North Carolina's natural resources.
But meeting that stewardship obligation is a whole lot harder
than just recognizing it. With the proliferation and complexity
of environmental standards and regulations, it is no easy job
for industries and local governments to comply with their
environmental responsibilities. For one thing, most of those
responsibilities are relatively new. The North Carolina
General Assembly, like other legislatures around the country,
passed environmental laws in large numbers in the 1970's.
For another thing, those responsibilities are constantly
changing and increasing. Also, these laws focus on disposal
or discharge of wastes, an end-of-the-pipe.
A look at activity in the Department over the last year bears
this out. The restrictive nutrient-sensitive classification
was placed on two major lakes. Falls and Jordan. A state-
wide system of classification for groundwater moved toward
its effective date in December. And, our Division of
Environmental Management continued its work to "solve a newly-
discovered problem involving the misuse and mislabeling of
toxic chemicals called biocides.
The point is this: Management of these obligations is tough
for the people we regulate. In environmental auditing, we
have an effective internal tool that managers in industry and
local government can use to get the job done. We consider
-133-
-------
environmental auditing as a form of self-help that is good
business, that protects the environment, and that prevents
a regulatory agency like NRCD from having to step in.
Because of its value, our Department is encouraging the use
of auditing through a program of information and assistance.
We do not plan to offer incentives such as reduced fines or
reduced inspections to people who use auditing programs.
There are two reasons: First, auditing is an inherently sound
concept that has produced results in the private sector. In
other words, auditing has been proven to work in the absence
of such incentives. Second, incentives amount to a form of
governmental intervention. They raise questions about the
ultimate direction of an agency's auditing program. On the
bottom line, we believe that we should let auditing continue
as it began - as a private industry initiative.
The Department's aim is to act as a catalyst. You are already
familiar with many of the environmental laws administered by
NRCD. They include the Water Pollution Control Law, the Air
Pollution Control Law, the Oil and Hazardous Substance
Pollution Control Law, the Mining Act, the Coastal Area
Management Act, and the Sedimentation Pollution Control Act.
To administer the Natural Resource Laws, we seek a balance
between regulatory actions that deter violations and agency
steps-that encourage compliance. On the one hand, we believe
that an active enforcement program will always be required.
It will be required to keep faith with the people who go to
the trouble and expense to comply with the laws. It will
also be necessary to deal with the small number of recalci-
trant people who refuse to comply. On the other hand, an
agency like ours has a responsibility to help and encourage
people to comply. We recognize that most people want to do
the right thing, we realize also, that our resources are
scarce.
At most, we can deal with a small number of violators. The
catalyst role concerning auditing and prevention of pollution
helps us balance the equation between deterrence and
encouragement.
Indeed, our goal is to achieve higher levels of Voluntary
Compliance. One unusual aspect of our efforts in environmental
auditing is that our Department encourages local governments
as well as industry to use the technique. Local governments
frequently have extensive environmental responsibilities. In
certain respects, their compliance record has not been as
good as industry's record. We believe that the same features
that make environmental auditing an effective management tool
for industry will make it an effective management tool for
local governments.
-134-
-------
Our agency feels that more widespread use of environmental
auditing in North Carolina will yield other important benefits.
First, we believe that it will improve communication between
regulatory agencies like ours and the people who use auditing
programs. That's because users know what their compliance
status is. They find out about problems early, can correct
them early, and when required, can let government agencies
know about the problem. Indeed, although environmental
auditing is an internal management tool, som.e companies have
chosen to incorporate regulator contacts with regulatory
agencies as a part of their programs.
The second benefit is that environmental auditing lays the
groundwork for our "Pollution Prevention Pays" program. I
think you all are familiar with this concept. Through
pollution prevention and waste reduction we hope to eliminate
the causes of pollution rather than spending large sums of
money to clean up environmental problems after they occur.
Our agency and other agencies in state government see
pollution, prevention pays as an important part of the solution
to many hazardous waste and other pollution problems.
Environmental auditing gives a company or local government at
least part of that baseline information that it will need to
evaluate what low or non-pollution technology alternatives
are available.
I've described what we see as the benefits of environmental
auditing. Now let me give a quick summary of auditing acti-
vity in North Carolina. Use of various approaches to auditing
appears broader than we thought originally, but still not
extensive. Its use is especially limited among smaller in-
dustries and units of government. But, we see that the use
of auditing is growing and that there is a lot of interest in
it.
The programs that do exist in North Carolina seem to come
from one of four points of origin. First, North Carolina has
many large corporations that have headquarters elsewhere but
one or more plants in the state. Some of these corporations
have system-wide audit programs. The North Carolina facilities
are audited as part of a larger program. Second, are manager-
to-manager communications. The department hss initiated
discussions with the top managers of various industries that
have high potential for significant environmental impact. The
message is that we should settle regulatory issues in manager
to manager discussions whenever possible. Any settlements
have to be done in a principled way, would have to result from
discussions between managers, not lawyers, and need to aim
-135-
-------
for a result that protects the environment while recognizing
the industries' interests as well. In some of those discus-
sions, environmental auditing has emerged as a way to get
those results.
A third point of origin is enforcement cases. In a number of
cases, the people involved have asked for advice on how to
avoid such problems in the future. In some of those cases,
NRCD has suggested consideration of environmental auditing.
Finally, some North Carolina industries have learned about
environmental auditing from sources other than NRCD and have
seen the value in it. Duke Power Company is an example.
Duke began its environmental auditing program approximately
two years ago, and has been quite pleased with the results so
far.
Environmental auditing is providing its value to users in and
out of North Carolina. The feedback from the users is very
positive. Therefore, NRCD plans to forge ahead to improve
the effectiveness of our information and assistance program.
Through earlier financial support from EPA, we were able to
study the feasibility and opportunity for a state supported
program in environmental auditing. The institute for
environmental studies at UNC-CH prepared an excellent report
which we used to form our program.
It is the policy of the department to encourage the use of
environmental auditing as a positive approach to environmental
manangement and regulatory compliance. In developing and
carrying out this policy, the Division of Environmental
Management convened the North Carolina Environmental Auditing
Roundtable. Members representing business, government and
the community have provided invaluable advice and assistance
in implementing a workable program for environmental auditing
in North Carolina.
The Roundtable has helped prepare our environmental auditing
information package, identified North Carolina groups with
various auditing programs, and acts as an outreach to promote
environmental auditing throughout the state.
We are optimistic about the potential of environmental auditing
to help people help themselves meet their environmental
responsibilities. We solicit your views and support for this
effort. Thank you for inviting me to join you today.
-136-
-------
LEONARD J. FLECKENSTEIN
0 Bachelor of Science, State University of New York at Stony
Brook, NY
0 Master of Public Administration, George Washington University,
Washington, DC
0 Senior Environmental Planner, Puget Sound Council of Governments,
Seattle, WA
0 Policy and Program Analyst, U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, Washington, DC and Boston, MA:
- Policy Planning Branch, Office of Federal Activities;
- Environmental Impact Office, EPA Region I;
- Transportation Policy Branch, Office of Air Programs;
- Regulatory Reform Staff, Office of Policy, Planning
and Evaluation.
0 Currently Environmental Auditing Project Manager, and Chief,
Special Projects Unit, Regulatory Reform Staff, OPPE/EPA.
-137-
-------
SUMMARY
Environmental Auditing;
A Management Tool and Potential Regulatory Reform
Leonard Fleckenstein
Environmental Auditing Project Manager
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Definition
Environmental Auditing refers to internal management systems for
reviewing facility operations and practices to assess and verify
compliance with environmental regulations and corporate policies.
As with other audits (e.g., operational or financial audits),
environmental audits serve as a periodic check on on-going practices.
Why audit ?
Firms are motivated to establish audit systems for many reasons
— among them to help: verify compliance with environmental
regulations; assess risks from hazards, whether regulated or
unregulated; avoid tort liability; identify poor operating,
maintenance or reporting practices, prevent surprises; realize
financial savings; comply with Security and Exchange Commission
requirements; and collect information helpful for merger,
acquisition or expansion planning.
Role of Government
Rather than mandate third party oversight for all companies,
EPA in 1981 began to consider existing in-house auditing programs
as an alternative to the third party concept.
EPA began exploring a programmatic approach and envisioned a
structured, voluntary program which would build on corporate
auditing practices and be piloted in interested states. But as
a result of uncertainties and concerns, it became clear that EPA
had to re-examine its thinking.
During 1983 EPA explored less structured ways of getting
at the same goals. The approach consisted of three interrelated
activities: analysis, endorsement, and assistance.
Endorsement
Endorsement aimed to:
0 express EPA approval of the concept of self-auditing,
0 create a clearinghouse on state-of-the-art auditing practices
to let firms, EPA and states learn from each other,
0 acknowledge good programs by showcasing them, and
0 encourage firms to adopt auditing or upgrade what they have.
Analysis
Our analytical efforts produced:
0 a dozen pioneering reports providing the base for an EPA
clearinghouse on current auditing practices,
-138-
-------
0 better understanding of how auditing works and its impact
on environmental performance,
0 evidence about auditing's benefits to the government,
environment and industry,
0 and suggestive directions for future policy development.
Assistance
As part of our "assistance" efforts we've offered limited
assistance to states and firms interested in pursuing joint
environmental auditing approaches which go beyond or otherwise
differ from EPA's approach. Several states have expressed
interest in building on or accelerating corporate auditing.
Federal agencies
Besides working with state and local agencies, we have been
reaching out to other Federal agencies which own or operate
polluting facilities to attempt to transfer private sector
environmental auditing methods, as appropriate, to help those
agencies meet environmental goals.
Future Directions
The next steps for our Environmental Auditing Project include:
0 determining specific envvironmental benefits (quantified
if possible ), and
0 identifying specific policy issues and options, as predicates
to new policy initiatives, providing incentives for or
removing existing disincentives to self-auditing.
Criteria
In evaluating corporate environmental auditing systems, state
programs and EPA strategies, we may necessarily need to define
some set of criteria for elements of effective audit systems.
This criteria would likely have to be informal and broad, and
might include at a minimum:
0 strong commitment from the firm's senior management,
0 an audit manager or team independent of production,
0 a structured audit system with written audit procedures,
0 technical quality of the audit activities,
0 trained staff,
0 audit frequency,
0 a system for reporting audit findings to senior management,
0 and a corrective action program.
Potential Policy Statement on Environmental Auditing
Based on the evaluations of corporate audit systems, state
programs, and EPA compliance strategy options, we may develop
a policy statement (or amend policies) to address auditing
issues.
-139-
-------
WORKSHOP E
ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY OPERATIONS STUDIES AND APPLICATIONS
John Rushing
Deputy Chief of Planning
South Atlantic Division
Corps of Engineers
Atlanta, GA
Jerome L. Mahlock
EWQQS
USAE Waterways Experiment Station
Vicksburg, MS
Robert Gaugush, Biologist
Environmental Laboratory
USAE Waterways Experiment Station
Vicksburg, MS
John T. Anderson, Chief
Impact Analysis Section
Environmental Resources Branch
Savannah District
Corps of Engineers
Savannah, GA
-------
JOHN W. RUSHING
Native of Laurel, Mississippi
Jan 1962 - Received BS Degree in Civil Engineering from Mississippi
State University
Jun 1970 - Master of Science Degree in Water Resources Management
from University of Wisconsin
Feb 1962 - Worked in various positions in Planning in Mobile District,
Sep 1972 Corps of Engineers. Major responsibilities included developing
and analyzing water resources plans for various river basins
in the district.
Sep 1972 - Served as Chief, Environmental Resources Branch, of South
Jan 1981 Atlantic Division Office, Corps of Engineers, in Atlanta, GA.
Responsible for review of environmental planning in five
districts - Mobile, Jacksonville, Savannah, Charleston and
Wilmington.
Jan 1981 - Serving in dual capacity as Chief, Environmental Resources
Present Branch, and Assistant Chief, Planning Division, of South
Atlantic Division, Corps of Engineers.
-140-
-------
WORKSHOP
ENVIRONMENTAL & WATER QUALITY OPERATIONAL STUDIES
(EWQOS) AND APPLICATIONS
Presenters: Dr. Jerome L. Mahlock
Mr. Robert F. Gaugush
Mr. John T. Anderson
This workshop consisted of two presentations on the Corps of
Engineers' research program entitled Environmental and Water Quality
Operational Studies and one presentation on the application of the
results of such research on a current Corps project.
Dr. Jerome Mahlock gave a slide presentation describing the overall
EWQOS program. He noted that the EWQOS program was currently the
largest funded Research and Development program within the Corps,
attesting to the Corps' commitment to solve environmental quality
problems associated with its water resource mission. A summary of his
remarks is attached.
Mr. Robert Gaugush discussed the efforts that had been directed at
developing a set of simplified techniques for predicting water quality
and eutrophication potential. Using a series of slides, he reviewed the
three major objectives of the efforts: (1) evaluate existing simplified
techniques, (2) determine applicability to reservoirs and (3) modify
existing or formulate new simplified techniques. A copy of his remarks
is attached.
Mr. John Anderson discussed the application of some of the EWQOS
work to the Richard B. Russell Dam and Lake project on the Savannah
River in Georgia and South Carolina. The areas discussed included means
to improve the dissolved oxygen content in the release waters from the
Richard B. Russell project and to minimize the impacts of vegetation on
water quality of the lake. Slides were utilized to show the development
and design of an oxygen injection system at the project and demonstrate
how it would work. A copy of Mr. Anderson's remarks is attached.
Attendance at the workshops varied from 15 to 30 people. The
display prepared on the EWQOS program by WES attracted considerable
attention and copies of information on the various studies in the
program were provided to anybody desiring them.
-141-
-------
JEROME L. MAHLOCH
POSITION TITLE: Environmental Engineer
FUNCTIONAL TITLE: Program Manager, Environmental and Water Quality
Operational Studies, Environmental Laboratory
EDUCATION: BS, Civil Engineering, University of Nebraska, 1966
MS, Civil Engineering, University of Nebraska, 1968
PhD, Environmental Health Engineering, University of
Kansas, 1970
EXPERIENCE:
1970-1974, Mississippi State University, Assistant Professor
of Civil Engineering and Microbiology
1974-1977, Special Assistant, Environmental Engineering
Division, Environmental Effects Laboratory
1977-Present, Program Manager, Environmental and Water
Quality Operational Studies, Environmental Laboratory
PROFESSIONAL INTERESTS:
Environmental Engineering, Hazardous Waste Disposal, Microbiology,
Environmental Data Analyses specializing in Multivariant
Techniques, Computer Programming, Environmental Effects
associated with Water Resource Development
ORGANIZATIONAL MEMBERSHIP:
Water Pollution Control Federation
OTHER EXPERTISE/ACCOMPLISHMENTS:
Registered Professional Engineer, State of Mississipppi
-142-
-------
Environmental and Water Quality Operational Studies
(EWQOS) - An Overview
by Jerome L. Mahlock, Program Manager
USAE Waterways Experiment Station
Vicksburg, MS
I wish to thank the organizers of this Eighth Environmental Review Confer-
ence for allowing me to discuss the EWQOS program and report on its findings.
My talk will be an overview of the program and succeeding presenters will high-
light specific applications at the R. B. Russell project.
The EWQOS program is solving environmental problems affecting reservoir
and inland waterway projects of the Corps. Impetus for the program began with
the passage of NEPA and problems Corps field offices faced in meeting newly
emerging National environmental goals. Input from field offices was critical
in formulating the EWQOS program and has continued throughout its execution.
Currently, EWQOS is the largest funded R & D program within the Corps, attest-
ing to its commitment to solve environmental quality problems associated with
its water resource mission.
Within the EWQOS program there has been a major emphasis on field studies
of operational projects. These studies have provided the data to understand
the environmental response of our projects and contribute to the development
of technology. Field studies also offer an avenue to demonstrate technology
and to verify methods such as numerical water quality models. Information pro-
vided by field studies also contributes to improving Corps environmental moni-
toring programs and the usefulness of data gained from these programs.
Major findings from studies on reservoir projects are their environmental
response based on design or operation which lead to improved evaluation tools
and management or remedial actions to correct environmental problems. Evalua-
tion techniques developed include numerical water quality models plus nutrient
loading analysis models to evaluate water quality conditions. The numerical
-144-
-------
models include both 1- and 2-dimensional representations of reservoirs that are
completely capable of simulating projects over a wide range of conditions.
Nutrient loading analysis provides a quick and efficient network of models for
evaluation response to eutrophy and can have wide ranging inferences to moni-
toring programs.
There are several major operational problems associated with reservoirs
that are covered within the EWQOS program. Nuisance algae blooms are a con-
sequence of eutrophication in reservoirs. Control of nutrients along with mix-
ing in controlled enclosures has demonstrated that these nuisance algae can be
suppressed. Fisheries both within a reservoir and in the tailwater are
interrelated and very responsive to project management or operation. Studies
of reservoir fisheries have lead to procedures to evaluate their impacts and
management procedures to alleviate these impacts for a variety of operational
scenarios and project categories. Erosion control on reservoir shorelines is
a prevalent problem that has aesthetic, habitat, and water quality implications.
Vegetation can be used in many cases to control shoreline erosion. These tech-
niques have been demonstrated at several projects in various locations around
the country. Interactions between reservoir sediments and the water column has
obvious water quality implications. Laboratory and field studies on these pro-
cesses have contributed to improved water quality modeling techniques and eval-
uation of reservoir clearing and filling practices.
EWQOS results have also been applied to the design of reservoir projects.
Of particular importance is the design of selective withdrawal systems to con-
trol project water quality. Additionally, emphasis has been placed on reaera-
tion of hydropower releases where dissolved oxygen may be a problem. Design
and operation guidance are also available for reservoir mixing and aeration to
improve water quality.
-145-
-------
Studies related to inland waterway projects have focused on impacts attri-
butable to project features. Emphasis has been placed on field studies and a
habitat approach to evaluating ecological conditions. Such diverse project
features as revetments, dikes, and cutoff bendways have been studied. Results
have demonstrated that many project features add to the ecological diversity
of waterways and may, in some cases, offer significant opportunities for
improved management of natural resources.
Results from waterway field studies have been verified at several sites
throughout the country. Information has contributed markedly to methods for
monitoring large waterway projects. In particular, the use of hydroacoustics
appears very promising for dynamically studying fishery resources. Studies are
also currently underway that address the biological impacts of navigation traf-
fic and fleeting areas.
For several project categories information has been assembled that pro-
vides environmental features for design, construction, operation, and mainte-
nance. These project categories include dikes, levees, streambank protection,
and flood control channels. This information has been assembled in a series
of comprehensive documents for each project category.
As the EWQOS program is completed during the current fiscal year, empha-
sis has been placed on technology transfer activities. These include publica-
tion of results in various media, informing potential users of available infor-
mation, and providing assistance to Corps elements in the application of EWQOS
technology. A commitment to technology transfer will ensure that the products
of EWQOS are effectively used to solve environmental quality problems facing
the Corps and promote sound water resource development in harmony with National
Environmental goals.
-146-
-------
Robert F. Gaugush
EDUCATION
A. Undergraduate Education
- B.A. (Biology) 1975
Lewis University, Lockport, Illinois.
B. Graduate Education
- Masters Degree - bypassed
- Ph. D. (Ecology) 1985
Kent State University, Kent, Ohio.
- Dissertation - Signal Analysis: A Method for the
Characterization of Ecosystem Behavior
EXPERIENCE
. A. September 1975 - September 1978. Teaching Fellowship.
B. October 1978 - July 1979. Research Fellowship.
Research position in the Department of Hydrobiology at
the University of Warsaw, Poland. Research with Dr.
Z. M. Gliwicz involved modeling the size-specific and
age-specific population dynamics of freshwater
zooplankton.
C. September 1979 - May 1982. Teaching Fellowship.
D. June 1982 - Present. Instructor.
Although employed by Kent State University as an
instructor, I presently perform the duties of a
Biologist as outlined in an Interagency Personnel
Agreement between the University and the U.S. Army
Engineer Waterways Experiment Station.
-147-
-------
SIMPLIFIED TECHNIQUES FOR PREDICTING
EUTROPHICATION IN IMPOUNDMENTS
by
Robert F. Gaugush
Environmental Laboratory
USAE Waterways Experiment Station
Vicksburg, MS
One of the major research efforts within the Environmental and Water
Quality Operational Studies (EWQOS) was directed at developing a set of
simplified techniques for predicting reservoir water quality and
eutrophication potential. This research effort had three major objectives:
1) evaluate existing simplified techniques, 2) determine applicability to
reservoirs, and 3) modify existing or formulate new simplified techniques.
This research has been conducted by W.W. Walker, Jr. under a contract with
the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Waterways Experiment Station and has
produced three reports (Walker, 1981; 1982; 1984) that describe the data
base development, model testing, and model refinements. A users manual for
the application of these simplified techniques is currently being prepared.
Simplified techniques or empirical models differ considerably from the
more typical simulation models used for the prediction of water quality.
Mathematical simulation models require large data sets and considerable user
expertise to provide their high resolution (in space and time) predictions
of water quality. Empirical models, on the other hand, require less data
and user expertise but provide lower resolution (spatially and temporally
-148-
-------
averaged) predictions. Numerous empirical models for predicting lake water
quality have been developed and can be grouped into two major types.
Nutrient balance models attempt to relate lake or outflow nutrient
t
concentrations to nutrient loading, morphometry, and hydrology.
Eutrophication response models attempt to describe the relationships between
eutrophication indicators (eg. nutrient concentration, chlorophyll a,
transparency, and oxygen depletion) within the lake. These models have been
successful in predicting the average water quality conditions in a number of
north temperate lakes.
While lakes and reservoirs certainly share the same biological and
chemical processes there are several significant differences between lakes
and reservoirs that may influence the ability to apply the existing
empirical models to reservoirs. A comparison of 309 natural lakes and 108
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USAE) reservoirs included in the 1972-75 U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency National Eutrophication Survey indicated
that reservoirs had greater drainage and surface areas, drainage/suraface
area ratios, mean and maximum depths, shoreline development ratios, and
areal water loads than did natural lakes. Reservoirs also had shorter
hydraulic residence times and lower total phosphorus and chlorophyll
concentrations despite higher total phosphorus and nitrogen loadings
(Thornton et al., 1982). Reservoirs also exhibit pronounced longitudinal
gradients in water quality as a result of the advective and unidirectional
transport that dominates these systems (Baxter, 1977).
-149-
-------
Given these differences between natural lakes and reservoirs it was not
unexpected that existing empirical models did not adequately predict water
quality when applied to reservoirs. Walker (1982) examined these existing
techniques using data from 108 USAE reservoirs and concluded that reservoir-
specific factors such as turbidity, water residence time, mean depth,
morphometric complexity, and the existence of spatial gradients in water
quality necessitated an extensive modification of the existing simplified
techniques. Walker (1984) developed three empirical models (FLUX, PROFILE,
and BATHTUB) that represent a significant improvement over existing
simplified techniques. These empirical techniques relate eutrophication
symptoms to nutrient loading, hydrology, and reservoir morphometry through
the use of statistical models derived from a representative cross-section of
reservoirs.
FLUX was developed as an interactive program for estimating mass
loadings or discharges passing a tributary or outflow monitoring station.
The purpose of the program is to estimate average or total nutrient loading
based on intermittent grab-sample concentration data a complete flow record.
Loading estimates derived from the application of the model can be used in
eutrophication response models. FLUX also provides for an assessment of the
data and the sampling program used to collect it.
PROFILE facilitates the analysis and interpretation of pool water
quality data from existing reservoirs. A number of graphic displays are
included to assist the user in developing an understanding of the spatial
and temporal variability in water quality within a given reservoir. Also
included in the model are algorithms for the calculation of hypolimnetic
-150-
-------
oxygen depletion rates and for the estimation of area-weighted, suface-layer
mean concentrations of nutrients and other response variables.
BATHTUB was designed to permit the application of empirical
eutrophication response models to morphometrically complex reservoirs or to
collections of reservoirs. The program performs water and nutrient balance
calculations in a spatially segemented hydraulic network which accounts for
advective and diffusive transport and nutrient sedimentation.
Eutrophication-related water quality conditions (ie. total phoshorus, total
nitrogen, chlorophyll a, transparency, and hypolimnetic oxygen deficit rate)
are predicted using empirical relationships previously developed and tested
(Walker, 1984). The application of BATHTUB would normally follow the use of
FLUX to reduce tributary or inflow data and the use of PROFILE to reduce
reservoir pool water quality data.
The empirical models described above can be used in two general
applications: diagnostic and predictive. In the diagnostic mode, the
models provide a framework for data reduction and analysis of water quality
data from a given reservoir. The analysis allows for an interpretation of
eutrophication-related water quality conditions and their controlling
factors. Reservoir water quality can be compared to water quality standards
and objectives or to the water quality of other reservoirs. In the
predictive mode, the models can be used to project future water quality
conditions in the reservoir. The models can be used to predict the
long-term responses to changes in the controlling variables. Projected
water quality changes in response to changes in inflow nutrient
concentration, mean pool level, or hydrology culd be determined.
-151-
-------
Eutrophication has a number of significant effects on reservoir water
quality and can seriously impair reservoir use. Eutrophication-related
symptoms such as algal blooms, hypolimentic anoxia, and high levels of
reduced metals have direct effects on the potential uses of the water in and
downstream of the reservoir. Recreation, water supply, and wildlife can all
be significantly impacted by eutrophication. Methods for predicting
eutrophication and the related water quality conditions are required to aid
in the design and operation of reservoirs in ways which are consistent with
operational and water quality objectives. The simplified techniques
described above represent a means to understand current water quality
conditions as well as a means to project future changes in reservoir water
quality.
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Baxter, R.M. 1977. Environmental Effects of Dams and Impoundments. Ann.
Rev. Ecol. Syst. 8:255-283.
Thornton, K.W., R.H. Kennedy, A.D. Magoun, and G.E. Saul. 1982.
Reservoir Water Quality Sampling Design. Wat. Res. Bull.
18:471-480.
Walker, W.W., Jr. 1981. Empirical Methods for Predicitng Eutrophication in
Impoundments; Phase I: Data Base Development. Technical Report
E-81-9, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Waterways Experiment Station,
Vicksburg, MS.
Walker, W.W., Jr. 1982. Empirical Methods for Predicting Eutrophication in
Impoundments; Phase II: Model Testing. Technical Report E-81-9, U.S.
Army Corps of Engineers, Waterways Experiment Station, Vicksburg, MS.
Walker, W.W., Jr. 1984. Empirical Methods for Predicting Eutrophication in
Impoundments; Phase III: Model Refinements. Technical Report E-81-9,
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Waterways Experiment Station, Vicksburg,
MS.
-152-
-------
JOHN T. ANDERSON
John Anderson, a native North Carolinian, received both the BS (1972)
and MAT (1972) degrees in science teaching from the University of
North Carolina in Chapel Hill. After teaching in the public schools,
he began his Federal service as a biologist with the U.S. Army Engineer
District, Memphis, Tennessee. After more than five years, he accepted
a position in 1978 as an ecologist with the U.S. Army Engineer District
in Savannah, Georgia. His work with the Corps of Engineers has in-
cluded a wide range of environmental studies, coordination, and documen-
tation involving civil works, military construction, and regulatory
functions. Since 1980, he has served as supervisor of one or another
of the environmental sections within Savannah District's Environmental
Resources Branch, Planning Division.
Beginning in February 1985, John Anderson will be working in the Future
Directions Office of the Corps' headquarters, the Office of the Chief
of Engineers in Washington, DC.
-153-
-------
APPLICATIONS OF ENVIRONMENTAL WATER QUALITY OPERATIONAL STUDIES
by JOHN T. ANDERSON
The Savannah District Is one of 36 districts in the U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers. At the district level civil works projects are planned, designed
and constructed. During this process, managers are often faced with environ-
mental questions that need some scientific basis for decision making. One of
the ways of obtaining the necessary information is to turn to the major
research arm of the Corps, the U.S. Army Engineer Waterways Experiment Station,
located in Vicksburg, Mississippi. One particular program at Waterways is a
series of studies called the Environmental Water Quality Operational Studies
(EWQOS). This report outlines the applications of these EWQOS studies to the
Richard B. Russell Dam and Lake project on the Savannah River In Georgia and
South Carolina.
There are three lakes in succession on the Savannah River. The northernmost is
Hartwell Dam and Lake completed in 1959 and covering approximately 55,000
surface acres. The southernmost is the Clarks Hill Dam and Lake, completed in
1956 and covering approximately 71,000 surface acres. The Richard B. Russell
Lake was impounded this year and will cover 26,000 acres. A powerhouse is
still under construction at the Richard B. Russell Dam where power-on-line is
scheduled for December 1984. Taken together, these three lakes form a series
with essentially no free flowing water between them. Hartwell Lake empties
into Richard B. Russell Lake, which empties into Clarks Hill Lake. This is a
unique situation in the Southeast and offers a special opportunity for
scientific study. Recognizing that placing Richard B. Russell Lake between
Hartwell and Clarks Hill Lakes could impact water quality and fisheries, the
Savannah Di-strict began looking for answers to some obvious questions related
to water quality and fishery.
These lakes do stratify in the summer, beginning in about June and breaking up
in November. The potential impacts of releasing cold, low dissolved oxygen
hypolimnetic waters from Hartwell and running them through Richard B. Russell
and through Clarks Hill Lakes T; -. a major concern. Prior to impoundment of
Richard B. Russell the free flowiii^ river between Hartwell and Clarks Hill Lake
provided some reaeration of the waters being released by Hartwell. The impound-
ment of the free flowing river is now a lake environment. One would expect
impacts on water quality, as well as the fishery. The District's primary
concerns were the Impacts on dissolved oxygen and temperature in Richard B.
Russell Lake and Clarks Hill Lake. There is a put-and-take trout fishery in
the cold water releases below Hartwell Lake and a healthy fishery in Clarks
Hill Lake which could be secondarily impacted by the creation of Richard B.
Russell Lake.
-154-
-------
In the mid-70's a technical committee was established to study the thermal and
dissolved oxygen characteristics of the proposed Richard B. Russell Lake to
identify potential water quality problems. The objectives of this study were
to design a project that could meet the following criteria:
1. Maintain Federal and State water quality standards.
2. Maintain a cold water fishery in a 10-mile reach downstream of
Hartwell.
3. Develop a warm and cold water fishery within Richard B. Russell Lake.
4. Maintain a warm and cold water fishery within Clarks Hill Lake.
Because of the rather complex nature of this aquatic system, three lakes in
series, the Savannah District called upon the expertise of the Waterways
Experment Station to apply physical and mathematical models to address these
concerns. They used these models to study lake conditions under conventional
power generation, pumped storage operations, and also with supplementing
releases with dissolved oxygen. The initial findings of this study were that
(1) water quality standards could be met in releases from Russell if dissolved
oxygen were injected during periods of thermal stratification, (2) cold water
fishery downstream of Hartwell Dam could be maintained if oxygen was injected
as need, (3) the warm and cold water fishery at Richard B. Russell could be
achieved with a dissolved oxygen injection system, and (4) the warm and cold
water fishery at Clarks Hill Lake could be maintained for a distance of about
25 miles downstream with oxygen injection at Russell.
The Savannah District conducted some additional baseline studies to determine
the exact water quality conditions at Hartwell and at Clarks Hill Lakes prior
to the establishment of Richard B. Russell Lake. These studies were conducted
in 1981 and generally concluded that water quality was good and that most
parameters were within acceptable State and Federal limits. The sediment
analysis revealed no elevated levels of heavy metals, pesticides or PCBs.
The largest study that the District and Waterways became involved in was to
investigate ways to raise the dissolved oxygen level in the Russell Dam
releases. The District had committed itself to maintaining six parts per
million dissolved oxygen in the releases from Russell. Waterways Experiment
Station explored several methods of achieving this objective. Several tests
were run at the Clarks Hill Lake to assist in this effort. Some of the methods
looked at were:
1. Surface aeraters.
2. Diffused air injection.
3. Spillway aeration.
4. Penstock air injection.
-------
5. Multilevel penstock intakes.
6. Submerged weirs.
7. Oxygen injection/penstocks.
8. Midstream oxygenation.
9. Pure oxygen injection through fine pore diffusers at the face of the
dam.
10. Continuous oxygen injection through pore diffusers above the dam.
The lab and field tests that were conducted led to the conclusion that a pulse
and a continuous oxygen injection system were the best means of achieving the
six parts per million dissolved oxygen in the releases. This system would also
allow for cold water releases from Richard B. Russell which were desirable for
fishery purposes in Clarks Hill Lake. This system could also be built at the
same time as the dam construction.
The pulse system is located at the dam while the continuous injection system is
located approximately 1 mile upstream. The studies by Waterways Experiment
Station concerning the expected flows of waters in the reservoir assisted in
the location of this continuous oxygen injection system. The pulse system
consists of eight 340 foot lengths of fiberglass pipe with 216 diffusers. The
pipes are placed between the 8 hydropower intakes and extend perpendicular to
the dam just above the bottom. They would be fed by a storage tank on shore, a
pipe running across the top of the dam, and pipes descending the face of the
dam between the intakes. This pulse system would be operated only in severe
conditions during stratification when the continuous system was unable to
achieve the six parts per million of the dissolve oxygen in the release waters.
The continuous oxygen injection system located 1 mile upstream consists of two
1,200-foot links of 8-inch fiberglass pipe, each pipe containing 1,080 dif-
fusers, extending across the lake. These pipes are suspended approximately 10
feet from the bottom. Efforts were made to construct these oxygen injection
systems in the dry, however, schedules did not allow that and the construction
is being completed now.
Another study that was conducted by the Waterways Experiment Station under the
EWQOS Program addressed the potential Vapacts on water quality of inundating
26,000 acres of hardwood forest. As this area is flooded there are large
amounts of organic material, not only in the trees themselves, but the leaf
litter and the soil, which demand large amounts of the oxygen as they decay.
In order to alleviate some of this expected problem the District began a
program of clearing some of the vegetation. The District removed vegetation on
9,500 acres within the area to be inundated in order to remove some of this
oxygen demanding material. Some of these trees were left behind at carefully
selected locations to serve as fish attracters for the recreation program at
the lake. Not all the vegetation was removed but large areas were completely
scrapped of oxygen demanding material.
-156-
-------
With the potential problems identified, and with a system in place to alleviate
these potential problems, the District set about establishing a monitoring
program that would allow it to show compliance with the objectives. This
monitoring program is somewhat unique. The Corps of Engineers does not, in
most cases, go back to projects after they are constructed to see if predic-
tions have come true and if the problems have indeed been solved as was
projected. In this case, however, the Savannah District established with its
own funds and also with EWQOS funds from Waterways Experiment Station a Joint
Comprehensive Water Quality Monitoring Program. The objectives of this program
were to (1) determine conditions during impoundment, (2) to determine the
impacts of Richard B. Russell Lake on Clarks Hill, and (3) to monitor the
performance of the oxygen injection system.
Waterways Experiment Station established a laboratory on Richard B. Russell
Lake, equipped it and staffed it with personnel to run a full series of water
quality tests. This laboratory was established in August of 1983 and has been
taking samples at the lake since October 1983, prior to the beginning of
impoundment. The present agreement is for a 3-year effort by the laboratory to
look at water quality at 20 main stations and several supplemental stations in
Hartwell Lake, Richard B. Russell Lake, and Clarks Hill Lake such that impacts
can be traced throughout the three lake system. There are numerous parameters
that are being examined through field and laboratory measurements, these
include physical characteristics, metals, nutrients, and biological factors.
The investigation team is looking at depth profiles, as well as lake transects.
Many of the stations are located in the vicinity of the oxygen injection system
so that the monitoring results can be used to fine-tune the oxygen injection
system. Other Environmental Water Quality Operational Studies that are going
on at the laboratory include the investigations into the decomposition rates of
organic material in Richard B. Russell Lake, sediment deposition, and
zooplankton and macroinvertebrate populations.
Another study that is underway addresses the application of turbine venting at
dams. Waterways Experiment Station is presently doing a test at Clarks Hill
Lake to develop a generalized model of how turbine venting can be designed into
dams. Savannah District will apply this model at its dams to determine the
feasibility of using this practice at Hartwell Lake and Clarks Hill Lake.
Turbine venting consists of installing baffle plates on the main turbine units.
It is expected that such plates can add an additional two to four parts per
million dissolved oxygen in the releases. If it is found to be feasible at
Hartwell and Clarks Hill Dams, Savannah District will attempt to employ this
method of raising dissolved oxygen levels in those released waters.
The EWQOS program has assisted the District in drawing the following
conclusions about the Richard B. Russell project:
1. State water quality standards will be met.
2. The oxygen injection at Russell and turbine venting at Hartwell will
insure the maintenance of good water quality conditions in Russell and Clarks
Hill Lakes.
-157-
-------
3. A substantial warm water fishery will exist in Russell Lake.
4. The conditions will also be maintained in Clarks Hill Lake and
established in the upper end of Russell Lake for a cold water fishery.
All of these studies are helpful to the District in determining what impacts
are going to occur in the three lake system and make it possible for us to
adjust our operational plans to alleviate any adverse impacts.
-158-
-------
APPENDIX A
-------
309 AREAS OF RESPONSIBILITY
Sheppard N. Moore, Section Chief
0 Nuclear Regulatory Commission
Clara DeLay
0 Department of Housing & Urban Development
0 General Services Administration
0 Economic Development Administration
0 National Park Service
0 Forest Service
0 Farmer's Home Administration
0 U.S. Poastal Service
0 Veterans Administration
0 Urban Mass Transportation Administration
0 Interstate Commerce Commission
0 Federal Aviation Administration
0 Federal Housing Administration
0 Farm Credit Administration
Gerald Miller
0 Joint Chiefs of Staff
0 U.S. Air Force, Army, Navy, Coast Guard
0 Department of Defense
0 Soil"Conservation Service
0 Corps of Engineers (non-energy, non-transportation)
0 National Oceanic & Atmospheric Administration
0 Fish & Wildlife Service
Christian M. Hoberg
0 Department of Transportation
0 Department of Energy
0 Bureau of Land Management
0 Bonneville Power Administration
0 Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
0 Rural Electric Administration
0 Tennessee Valley Authority
0 Minerals Management Service
0 Bureau of Mines
0 Mining Enforcement and Safety Administration
0 Office of Surface Mining
0 Bureau of Reclamation
0 Federal Highway Administration
0 Federal Railroad Administration
0 Hazardous Materials Transportation
0 National Highway Traffic Safety Administration
0 National Transportation Safety Board
0 U.S. Railway Association
a-1
-------
OTHER PROGRAM AREAS OF RESPONSIBILITY
Reginald Rog.ersf Coordinator
0 Ocean Dumping
0 Coastal Zone Management
0 Outer Continental Shelf
a-2
-------
404 AREAS OF RESPONSIBILITY
Bill Kruczynski, Section Chief
Phosphate Mining
Beverly Ethridge
Mobile, Alabama District
Barbara Kleiss
Jacksonville, Florida District
(North Florida)
Allen Lucas
Huntington, West Virginia District
Louisville, Kentucky District
Nashville, Tennessee District
Savannah, Georgia District
Tom Weiborn
Memphis, Tennessee District
Vicksburg, Mississippi District
Eric Hughes
Jacksonville, Florida District
Lee Pelej
Wilmington, North Carolina District
Howard Marshall
Charleston, South Carolina District
a-3
-------
APPENDIX B
-------
POLICY AND PROCEDURES
For The
REVIEW OF FEDERAL
ACTIONS IMPACTING
THE ENVIRONMENT
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Office of External Affairs
Office of Federal Activities
Washington, D.C. 20460
-------
POLICY AND PROCEDURE l<-^
Table of Contents
PAGE
Nl'MBERS
CHAPTER 1 - PURPOSE, POLICY, AND MANDATES 1-1
1. Purpose ,. 1-1
2. Statutory Authorities 1-1
3. Policy 1-2
CHAPTER 2 - MANAGEMENT OF THE ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW PROCESS 2-1
1. General Responsibilities 2-1
2. Office of Federal Activities .1-1
a. Federal Agency Liaisons.... 2-1
b. Management; Information Unit ..*.....*.. 2-1
3. Regional Office 2-2
A. Program Offices 2-2
5. Specific Review Management Responsibilities 2-3
a. Headquarters and Regional Environmental Review
Coordinators 2-3
b. Principal Reviewer 2-3
c. Associate Reviewer.... 2-4
d. Consolidation of Comments 2-4
6. Routing and Lead Responsibility of ElS's and Other
Federal Actions 2-5
CHAPTER 3 - PRE-EIS REVIEW ACTIVITIES 3-1
1. Policy 3-1
2. General Liaison 3-1
3. EPA's Participation in Scoping 3-1
a. General 3-1
b. Responding to Scoping Requests 3-1
c. Input to the Scoping Process.... 3-2
4. EPA as a Cooperating Agency 3-3
a. General 3-3
b. Responding to Requests To Be a Cooperating Agency 3-3
c. Providing Guidance as a Cooperating Agency 3-3
5. EPA as Lead Agency 3-4
a. Determining Lead Agency 3-4
6. Reporting and Control 3-4
-------
POLICY AND PROCEDURES
PAGL
NUMBERS
CHAPTER 4 - REVIEW OF DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENTS
1 . Policy ....................... ...................................... 4-1
2. Draft EIS Review Management ........................................ 4-1
a. Establishing Deadlines and Time Extensions ............... . ..... 4-1
b. Categorization and Agency Notification System
for Draft EIS's ................................................ 4-1
3. Scope of Comments on the Draft EIS ................................. 4-2
a. General [[[ 4-2
b. Mitigation (40 CFR 1508.20) .................................... 4-3
c. Statutory Authorities .......................................... 4-3
d. Alternatives .... ..................... . ..... . ..... . ..... . ....... 4-3
e. Purpose and Need.. ...... . ....... . .............. .......... ...... 4-3
f. Projects Subject to Section 404(r) of
the Clean Water Act ....................... . .................... 4-4
g. Projects Potentially Affecting a Designated "Sole Source"
Aquifer Subject to Section 1424(e) of the SDWA ................. 4-4
4. Rating System Criteria ............................................. 4-5
a. Rating the Environmental Impact of the Action. ...... ........... 4-5
b. Adequacy of the Impact Statement ............................... 4-6
5. Approving and Distributing Consents on Draft EIS's ................. 4-6
a. Categories LO, EC, EO, 1, or 2 ................................. 4-5
b. Categories EU or 3 ............................ ................. 4-7
c. Checklist for Distribution of Agency
Comments on the Draft EIS ...................................... 4-7
6. Reporting and Control .................................. . ........... 4-7
CHAPTER 5 - POST-DRAFT EIS FOLLOW-UP ................................... 5-1
1. Policy [[[ 5-1
2. Post-Draft Consultations ........... . ............................... 5-1
3. Status Reports.. [[[ 5-1
4. Reporting and Control .............................................. 5-1
CHAPTER 6 - REVIEW OF FINAL EIS'S ...................................... 6-1
1. Policy [[[ 6-1
2. Final EIS Review Management ........................................ 6-1
a. Designating Lead Responsibility and Principal
-------
POLICY AND PROCEDURES 16^0
PAGE
NL'NLERS
3* Scope of Comments on Final EIS's .........*... 6-2
a. General •• 6-2
b. Mitigation Measures 6-2
c. Projects Under Section 404(r) of'the Clean Water Act 6-2
d. Projects Subject to Groundwater Evaluation Under
Section 1424(e) of the SDWA 6-3
4. Unresponsive Final EIS.. 6-3
5. Distribution of the Final EIS Comment Letter..... 6-4
6. Reporting and Control 6-4
CHAPTER 7 - MONITORING AND FOLLOW-UP 7-1
1. Policy 7-1
2. Monitoring and Follow-up 7-1
3. Review of the Record of Decision 7-i
4. Reporting and Control • 7-1
CHAPTER 8 - REVIEW OF DOCUMENTS OTHER THAN EIS'S 8-1
1. Policy 6-1
2. General Review Procedures 8-1
a. Lead Responsibility for Review of Other Actions 6-1
b. Conducting Reviews of Other Actions.. 8-1
c- Rating Other Federal Actions... • E-l
3. Legislation Reviews 8-1
4. Regulation Reviews 8-2
5. Other Agency Action Reviews 8-2
6. Determining the Need for an EIS 8-2
7. Environmentally Unsatisfactory Actions 8-2
8. Reporting and Control • 8-3
CHAPTER 9 - REFERRALS TO THE COUNCIL ON ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY 9-1
1. Policy 9-1
2. Criteria for Referral 9-1
3. Referral Procedures • 9-1
4. Referral Package Development Sequence 9-1
5. Content and Organization of the Referral Package 9-3
a. Administrator's Referral Package 9-3
b. CEQ Referral Package 9-3
c. Lead Agency Referral Package • 9-3
6. Approving and Distributing the Referral Package..... 9-4
FIGURE PAGE
TITLES NUMBERS
4-1 Summary of Rating Definitions and Follow-up Action 4-8
iii
-------
POLICY AND PROCEDURES ln-
CHAPTER 1 - PURPOSE. POLICY. AND MANDATES
1. PURPOSE.
a. This Manual establishes policies and procedures for carrying out the
Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA's) responsibilities to review and
comment on Federal actions affecting the quality of the environment. EPA has
general statutory authority under the National Environmental Policy Act of
1969 and the Council on Environmental Quality's implementing regulations, and
has specific authority and responsibility under Section 309 of the Clean Air
Act to conduct such reviews, comment in writing, and make those comments
available to the public. These responsibilities have been combined into or.e
process and are referred to throughout this Manual as the "Environmental
Review Process."
b. This Manual contains EPA's policies and procedures for carrying cut
the Environmental Review Process, assigns specific responsibilities, and
outlines mechanisms for resolving problems that arise in the Environment?.!
Review Process. This Manual is supplemented by, and should be read in con-
junction with, the following manuals, which are also prepared, distributed,
and maintained by the Office of Federal Activities:
(1) Office of Federal Activities Policies and Procedures Manual.
Contains current guidance and detailed information related to the Environ-
mental Review Process; and
(2) Environnental Review Process Data Management Manual. Contains
detailed guidance and reporting requirements for the national level computer-
ized tracking system.
2. STATUTORY AUTHORITIES.
a. The National Environnental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA), as amended,
(42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq., Public Law 91-190, 83 Stat. 852), requires that all
Federal agencies proposing legislation and other major actions significantly
affecting the quality of the hunan environment consult with other agencies
having jurisdiction by law or special expertise over such environmental
considerations, and thereafter prepare a detailed statement of these envi-
ronmental effects. The Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) has published
regulations and associated guidance to implement NEPA (40 CFR Parts 1500-
1508).
b. Section 309 of the Clean Air Act, as amended, (42 U.S.C. 7609, Public
Law 91-604 12(a), 84 Stat. 1709), requires the EPA to review and comment in
writing on the environmental impact of any matter relating to the duties and
responsibilities granted pursuant to the Act or other provisions of the
authority of the Administrator, contained in any: (1) legislation proposed by
a Federal department or agency; (2) newly authorized Federal projects for
construction and any major Federal action, or actions, other than a project
b-l
-------
POLICY AND PROCEDURES 16*u
for construction, to which Section 102(2)(C) of Public Law 91-190 applies; ar.d
(3) proposed regulations published by any department or agency of the Federal
Government. Such written comments must be made public at the conclusion of
any review. In the event such legislation, action, or regulation is deter-
mined to be unsatisfactory from the standpoint of public health, welfare, or
environmental quality, the determination .will be published and the matter
referred to the CEQ.
c. Federal environmental laws require, in most circumstances, facilities
of the Executive Branch of the Federal Government to comply with Federal,
State, and local pollution control requirements promulgated pursuant to, or
effective under, those statutes. The review of proposed Federal projects for
compliance with these national environmental standards is the responsibility
of the EPA through the Environmental Review Process and the Federal Facilities
Compliance Program. In addition to these general statutory authorities, the
reviews required under Section 1424(e) of the Safe Drinking Water Act (42 U.S.C.
300 h-3, Public Law 93-523, 88 Stat. 1678) and Section 404(r) of the Federal
Water Pollution Control Act (Clean Water Act) (33 U.S.C. 1344(r), Public Law
92-500, Public Law 95-217, 86 Stat. 884, 91 Stat 1600) are integrated into the
Environmental Review Process.
3. POLICY.
a*- The objective of the Environaental Review Process is to foster the
goals of the NEPA process by ensufing that the EPA's environmental expertise,
as expressed in its comments on Federal actions and other interagency liaison
activity, is considered by agency decisionmakers. It is EPA's policy to carry
out the Environmental Review Process in conjunction with EPA's other author-
ities to:
(1) Participate in interagency coordination early in the planning
process to identify significant environmental issues that should be addressed
in completed documents;
(2) Conduct follow-up coordination on actions where EPA has identified
significant environmental impacts to ensure a full understanding of the issues
and to ensure implementation of appropriate corrective actions; and
(3) Identify environmentally unsatisfactory proposals and consult
with other agencies, including the CEQ, to achieve timely resolution of the
major issues and problems.
b. In implementing this policy, EPA will assist Federal agencies in:
(1) Achieving the goals set forth in the NEPA;
(2) Meeting the objectives and complying with the requirements of the
laws and regulations administered by the EPA; and
-------
POLICY AND PROCEDURES
(3) Developing concise, well-reasoned decision documents which
identify project. impacts, a range of project alternatives, and mitigation
measures that will avoid or minimize adverse effects on the environment.
b-3
-------
POLICY AND PROCEDURES 16-
CHAPTER 2 - MANAGE!-EKT OF THE ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW PROCESS
1. GENERAL RESPONSIBILITIES. The EPA Administrator has delegated respon-
sibility for carrying out the Environmental Review Process to the Assistant
Administrator for External Affairs and the Regional Administrators but has
retained the responsibility to refer matters to the CEQ. The Assistant
Administrator, Office of External Affairs, has in turn delegated program
management to the Director, Office of Federal Activities, but has retained
the responsibility for concurring on proposed comment letters that have the
potential for referral to the CEQ.
2. OFFICE OF FEDERAL ACTIVITIES. The Office of Federal Activities (OFA)
within the Office of External Affairs (OEA) is the program manager for the
Environmental Review Process and for the overall coordination and policy
development for activities associated with this process. To carry out these
responsibilities, the OFA will maintain management support functions cor.-
sisting of Federal Agency Liaison staff assigned to coordinate with the
Headquarters offices of all Federal agencies and a Management Information
Unit. The Director, Federal Agency Liaison Division, working through the
Director, OFA, has overall policy development and management oversight
responsibility for the Environmental Review Process.
a. Federal Ager.cy Liaisons. Each Federal Agency Liaison (FAL), working
through their Division Director and other appropriate elements within the OFA,
has the following responsibilities:
(1) Conduct Headquarters-level liaison with other Federal agencies to
identify those actions that should be reviewed and to provide information on
how the EPA can most effectively review other agencies' proposed actions
pursuant to the Environmental Review Process;
(2) Provide management oversight of regional review actions carried
out under the requirements of this Manual, and provide policy guidance on the
Environmental Review Process to Headquarters program offices and regional EIS
reviewers;
(3) Ensure appropriate Headquarters involvement and support for actions
that are elevated under these procedures; and
(4) Coordinate the EPA review of proposed regulations, national level
Environmental Impact Statements (EIS's), and other national level activities
and other national level actions.
b. Management Information Unit.
(1) The Management Information Unit (MIU) is responsible for the
operation of a centralized data management and reporting system for the
Environmental Review Process, and for the public availability of comments
pursuant to Section 309 of the Clean Air Act. The procedures and requirements
for this centralized data system are described in the Environmental Review
b-4
-------
POLICY AND PROCEDURES 16-0
Process Data Management Manual. The M1U is also responsible for the official
filing of all EIS's in accordance with 40 CFR Section 1506.9.
(2) The MIU is responsible for preparing the following reports to
inform EPA officials and the public of EIS's and other Federal actions
received by the EPA for review and comment.
(a) COMDATE. This weekly computerized report contains a list of
all EIS's filed, pursuant to 40 CFR Section 1506.9, during the previous week.
COMDATE lists, in part, the EIS title, official filing date, EPA control
numbers, location, Federal Register notice date (40 CFR 1506.10(a)), date
consents are due to the lead agency, and regional assignment. Other relevant
information is also noted such as overall extensions of time granted by lead
agencies and EPA ratings of previously filed draft EIS's.
(b) CEQ Notice of EIS Availability. A Notice of Availability is
published in the Federal Register each Friday for EIS's filed during the pre-
vious week, pursuant to 40 CFR Section 1506.10(a). The minimum periods for
review of the EIS's are calculated fron the Federal Register date of this
notice.
(c) Notice of Availability of EPA Comments. A notice will be
published weekly announcing the availability of EPA comments on EISs, regula-
tions, and any other action for which an unsatisfactory determination has been
made. The notice will include, in part, the title, a summary of comments, and the
rating (if applicable) of each review completed.
3. REGIONAL OFFICE. Each EPA regional office is responsible for carrying out
the Environmental Review Process in accordance with the policies and proce-
dures of this Manual for proposed Federal actions affecting its region. Each
EPA regional office will designate a regional environmental review coordinator
who has overall management responsibility for the Environmental Review Process
in that region. It is the responsibility of the regional environmental review
coordinator to:
a. Ensure that the region is maintaining effective liaison with other
Federal agencies at the regional level;
b. Carry out lead responsibilities for the review of proposed EIS's and
other Federal actions assigned to the coordinator's region or other actions
for which it has lead responsibility (see paragraph 6 of this chapter); and
c. Ensure that the region is maintaining the official agency files and
is properly tracking correspondence generated under the regional Environmental
Review Process.
4. PROGRAM OFFICES. EPA program offices are responsible for providing tech-
nical assistance and policy guidance on review actions directly related to
their areas of responsibility. When acting as principal or associate reviewer
b-5
-------
POLICY AND PROCEDURES 16
in accordance with paragraph 5 of this chapter, program offices will follow
the policies and procedures set forth in this Manual.
5. SPECIFIC REVIEW MANAGEMENT RESPONSIBILITIES.
a. Headquarters and Regional Environmental Review Coordinators. The
term Environmental Review Coordinator (ERC) is used in this Manual to mean
either a regional environmental review coordinator or the OFA Division
Director managing FAL responsibilities for a particular action agency. It
is the ERC's responsibility to manage the environmental review of actions
to ensure EPA compliance with the procedures in this Manual and to:
(1) Ensure the timely receipt of all assigned EIS's listed in
COMDATE, and ensure completion of MIU reporting requirements;
(2) Designate a principal reviewer for each assigned action;
(3) Coordinate determination of the level of participation in EIS
scoping efforts and manage participation efforts;
(4) Coordinate determination of EPA's involvement as a cooperating
agency under Section 1501.6 of the CEQ regulations;
(5) Deternine the case-by-case need for reviewing the adequacy of the
contents of draft EIS's;
(6) Deternine the case-by-case need for preparation of comments on
final EIS's;
(7) Determine the appropriate rating to be assigned to each draft EIS
in the con-erst letter;
(8) Determine the need for preparation of conments on non-El S
actions;
(9) Ensure timely distribution and public availability of comnents;
and
(10) Initiate and manage agency follow-up efforts on comment letters
identifying significant problem areas.
b. Principal Reviewer. The principal reviewer (PR) is a person desig-
nated by the ERC to coordinate the review of the action and to prepare the EPA
comment letter on the proposed Federal action. The PR will be responsible for
ensuring that the views of other EPA offices are adequately represented in the
comment letter, and that the comment letter is consistent with agency policy
and reflects all applicable EPA environmental responsibilities. In general,
b-6
-------
POLICY ANT) PROCEDURE? 16- j
the PR for Headquarters lead reviews will be the FAL assigned to the lead
agency. The PR will have the responsibility to:
(1) Select associate reviewers (AR's) ensuring that all appropriate
regional and Headquarters EPA offices are asked to participate;
(2) Set due dates for AR comments that will ensure adequate time for
review by the signing official;
(3) Coordinate with AR's to ensure timely receipt of comments and
timely resolution of disagreements or inconsistencies between reviewers;
(4) Review and assure the validity of all consents included in the
final EPA response;
(5) Resolve and record the disposition of any disagreements with or
between AR comments in accordance with subparagraph d, below;
(6) Ensure consistency of EPA concents with any previous coacents on
the action;
(7) Reco-send the nost appropriate rating of the environmental impacts
of the proposal and/or the adequacy of the EIS, and include the rating in all
draft EIS comment letters; and
(8) Ensure the distribution of copies of the signed comment letter to
all AR's and other appropriate parties.
c. Associate Reviewer. The associate reviewer (AR) is a person designated
by the PR to provide technical and policy advice in specific review areas and
to provide the vievs of the office in which the AR is located. AR's will have
the responsibility to:
(1) Review assigned actions within their areas of responsibility
taking into account the policies and procedures of this Manual;
(2) Submit comments to the PR on actions in a timely manner;
(3) Obtain the appropriate level of concurrence on comments subcitted;
(A) If significant issues are identified, assist the PR in determining
the most appropriate rating for the proposed action; and
(5) Upon the request of the PR, and within the limits of available
resources, provide liaison with, and technical assistance to, the agency that
initiated the EIS or other Federal action.
d. Consolidation of Comments. The PR will consider all AR comments during
preparation of the EPA consent letter. If the PR disagrees with substantive
AR comments, the PR will attempt to resolve the differences directly with the
b-7
-------
POLICY AND PROCEDURES 164u
AR. If this is not possible, the ERC will be inforr.ee and will coordinate
resolution of the issue. On comment letters where substantive changes are
made to comments generated by an AR, the PR will obtain AR concurrence on the
final letter. If major policy issues are involved, the ERC should be inforned
and policy level concurrence by the AR office should be obtained. All AR
comments, with applicable PR notations on disposition of the specific issue,
will be retained in the official project file.
6. ROUTING AXD LEAD RESPONSIBILITY OF EIS'S AND OTHER FEDERAL ACTIONS.
a. Distribution of EIS's should be accomplished by lead agencies on or
before the EIS filing date. To ensure that all EIS's are properly distributed,
the ERC will check the weekly COXDATE report to make sure that all assigned
EIS's have been received. If the ERC has not received an EIS identified in
COMDATE, the ERC will inform the KIU immediately and work with the MIL' to
obtain the EIS. If appropriate, r. request for a time extension due to lack of
availability of the EIS will be coordinated by the MIL' at that time. The
following table represents the normal routing and lead responsibility assign-
ment of review actions.
Action Directed to
Legislation (not accompanied by EIS) Office of Legislative Analysis
Policy statements, regulations, Office of Federal Activities
procedures, and legislation
accompanied by an EIS
Actions that enbody a high degree of Office of Federal Activities
national controversy or significance,
or pioneer Agency policy
All other actions Appropriate regional office
b. In general, a regional office will have the lead responsibility for
reviewing all EIS's and other Federal actions it receives. Specific
exceptions occur where:
(1) The EIS or other Federal action pertains to an action that is to
take place in another region. In such cases, that regional office will have
the lead, the MIU will be informed inaediately, and the EIS will be forwarded to
the lead region.
-(2) The EIS pertains to more than one region. In this case, the
affected regions should refer to COMDATE to determine which is the lead region
and which is an AR. If there is a disagreement with the COMDATE assignments,
the designated lead region will inform the MIU.
(3) The EIS or other Federal action pertains primarily to national
EPA policy, regulations, or procedures, or to an action which does not have a
b-ff
-------
POLICY AND PROCEDURES 1640
geographical focus (e.g., overlapping several regions), or to an action con-
cerning areas in which the .regional office does not have adequate expertise.
If the ERC suspects this to be the case, the ERC will contact the appropriate
FAL to determine lead responsibility. Unless otherwise agreed upon, such
cases will be forwarded immediately to the MIU for reassignment of the action.
c. A regional or Headquarters office may at any time request that a
particular EIS or other Federal action be evaluated by the OFA to determine
lead responsibility.
b-9
-------
POLICY AND PROCEDURES 16^;.
CHAPTER 3 - PRE-EIS REVIEW ACTIVITIES
1. POLICY. It is EPA's policy to participate early in the KEPA compliance
efforts of other Federal agencies to the fullest extent practicable in order
to identify EPA matters of concern with proposed agency actions and to assist
in resolving these concerns at the earliest possible stage of project develop-
ment. The ERC will make a concerted effort to resolve project concerns
through early coordination, where possible, rather than rely on submission of
critical comments on completed documents.
2. GENERAL LIAISON.
a. The regional environmental review coordinator and the FAL's will
establish and maintain contact at the appropriate levels of other agencies
in order to foster an effective working relationship between agencies, to
understand the agencies' programs and policies, and to be kept informed of
projects of interest to the EPA.
b. To the fullest extent practicable, the ERC will assist the action
agencies in:
(1) Early identification of potential project impacts and the need to
prepare assessments or EIS's;
(2) Identification of appropriate environmental assessment techniques
and methodologies; and
(3) Incorporation of all reasonable alternatives and impact
mitigation measures in the planning and development of projects.
3. EPA'S PARTICIPATION IN SCOPING.
a* General. Scoping is the formal early coordination process required by
CEQ's 1979 Regulations (40 CFR 1501.7) and is intended to ensure that problems
are identified early and are properly studied, that issues of little signifi-
cance do not consume time and effort, that the draft EIS is thorough ar.d
balanced, and that delays occasioned by an inadequate draft EIS are avoided.
To help achieve these objectives, EPA will participate in scoping processes to
the fullest extent practicable, emphasizing attendance at scoping meetings.
b. Respondinc to Scoping Requests.
(1) The ERC will review and respond by letter to all scoping requests
specifically made to the EPA. Although Federal Register Notices of Intent to
prepare an EIS are not considered specific, the ERC is responsible for being
aware of all relevant scoping requests and for participating in those of
special interest to the EPA. Responses to these non-EPA specific scoping
requests may be made by telephone, but a record of the communication must be
kept in the official project file.
b-10
-------
POLICY AND PROCEDURES 1640
(2) Scoping letters can be either a form letter of acknowledgment
with a list of generic concerns (related to project type or project area), or
a letter with detailed action-specific comments. A generic scoping letter or
telephone response must define EPA's anticipated level of participation in the
scoping process and include at least the following information:
(a) For the general type of project being proposed:
_1_ A list of all EPA permits that might be required;
2_ Significant environmental issues that should be
emphasized in preparation of the EIS; and
3_ References to publications, including guidelines and
current research, that would be useful in analyzing the environmental impacts
of various alternatives.
(b) A statement regarding EPA's intention to carry out its
independent environmental review responsibilities under Section 309 of the
Clean Air Act; and
(c) The name, title, and telephone nunber of the appropriate
working-level contact in the EPA.
(3) The level of EPA participation in scoping processes will be
determined by the ERC on a case-by-case basis, taking into account the
following factors:
(a) EPA's statutory responsibility;
(b) Severity of potential environmental impacts;
(c) Priority concerns identified in the Administrator's Agency
Operating Guidance; and
(d) Available staff and travel resources.
c- Input to the Scoping Process. For those scoping requests where the
ERC determines that more substantive EPA participation is warranted, the
generic information listed in subparagraph 3b(2) should be supplemented with
further detailed guidance to the lead agency. Such guidance will, to the
extent possible, include:
(1) Specific environmental issues that should be analyzed;
(2) Specific information or data related to the area of interest;
(3) Specific assessment techniques and methodologies that EPA program
offices use or have approved for use;
-------
POLICY AND PROCEDURES 16^0
(4) Reasonable alternatives to the proposed action that may avoid
potential adverse impacts, including suggestions for an environmentally
preferred alternative; and
(5) Mitigation measures that should be considered to reduce or sub-
stantially eliminate adverse environmental impacts.
4. EPA AS A COOPERATING AGENCY.
a. General. Under 40 CFR 1501.6, the lead agency may request any other
Federal agency to serve as a cooperating agency if it has jurisdiction or
special expertise (statutory responsibility, agency mission, or related pro-
gram experience) regarding any environmental issue that should be addressed in
the statement. EPA nay also request that the lead agency designate it as a
cooperating agency. The ERC is responsible for determining whether the EPA
will become a cooperating agency. The EUC is encouraged to accept cooperating
agency status as often as possible, taking into account the criteria in
subparagraph 3b(3).
b. Responding to Requests To Be a Cooperating Agency.
(1) If EPA determines in response to a formal request or nakes an
independent request to be a cooperating agency, the ERC must inform the lead
agency of this decision in writing. The response must clearly state that
every effort will be made to raise and resolve issues during scoping and EIS
preparation, but that EPA has independent obligations under Section 309 of the
Clean Air Act to review and comment on every draft EIS. EPA's response to a
request to become a cooperating agency should clearly outline EPA's role in
the preparation of the EIS. EPA's participation may range from participation
in the scoping process and reviewing the scope of work, any preliminary
drafts, or technical documents to assuming responsibility for developing
information, preparing environmental analyses, and actually drafting portions
of the EIS.
(2) If the ERC determines that resource limitations preclude any
involvement in the preparation of another agency's EIS, or preclude the degree
of involvement requested by the lead agency, it must inform the lead agency in
writing (40 CFR 1501.6(c)). The letter should clearly state that EPA's status
as a cooperating agency does not affect its independent responsibilities under
Section 309 of the Clean Air Act to review and comment on other agencies'
EIS's. A copy of this reply will be submitted to the CEQ.
c. Providing Guidance as a Cooperating Agency. Information and/or
guidance should be given to the lead agency in those areas where the EPA has
special expertise as related to EPA's duties and responsibilities and in those
subject areas described in subparagraph 3c. Specific guidance will be given
in those areas where the EPA intends to exercise regulatory responsibility.
b-12
-------
POLICY AND PROCEDURES 16-iu
5. EPA AS LEAD AGENCY.
a. Determining Lead Agency. When, in accordance with 40 CFR Part 6, EPA
has an action which is subject to 102(2)(C) of NEPA and the action involves
another Federal agency, the ERC and the other Federal agency will determine
the lead agency status in accordance with- the guidance contained in 40 CFR
1501.5(c), taking into account any relevant Memorandum of Understanding which
EPA has executed with the Federal agency in question. Selection of the lead
agency should be made at the earliest possible time. If the EPA is the lead
agency, EPA will not review the E1S under the Environmental Review Process.
6. REPORTING AND CONTROL. All responses related to scoping, cooperating, or
lead agency issues, together with follow-up correspondence must be made a part
of the official project file. Copies cf letters in which EPA declines an
agency's request to become a cooperating agency must be sent to the CEQ.
b-13
-------
POLICY AND PROCEDURES 1640
CHAPTER U - REVIEW OF DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENTS
1. POLICY. It is EPA's policy to review and comment in writing on all draft
EIS's officially filed with the EPA, to provide a rating of the draft E1S which
summarizes EPA's level of concern, and to meet with the lead agency to resolve
significant issues* The EPA review will be primarily concerned with identifying
and recommending corrective action for the significant environmental impacts
associated with the proposal. Review of the adequacy of the information and
analysis contained in the draft EIS's will be done as needed to support this
objective.
2. DRAFT EIS REVIEW MANAGEMENT. Except as noted below, the review management
procedures and responsibilities given in chapter 2 apply to the review of draft
EIS's.
a. Establishing Deadlines and Tiae Extensions.
(1) Deadlines. Unless a different deadline is officially established
for receiving comments, EPA will provide comments on a draft EIS to the lead
agency within 45 days from the start of the official review period. The offi-
cial EIS due dates are listed in COMDATE. The PR will set internal deadlines to
ensure EPA's conmer.ts are received within the official coanent period.
(2) Tioe Extensions. Requests for extensions of review periods on
draft EIS's should be kept to a minimum. In general, review period extensions
on draft EIS's should not be requested unless important environmental issues
are involved, and detailed substantive connents are being prepared. Time
extensions should normally not exceed 15 days.
b. Categorization and Agency Notification System for Draft EIS's.
(1) After completing the review of a draft EIS, the PR will cate-
gorize or "rate" the EIS according to the alpha numeric system described below
and in paragraph A of this chapter, and include the designated rating in the
comment letter. In general, the rating will be based on the lead agency's
preferred alternative. If, however, a preferred alternative is not iden-
tified, or if the preferred alternative has significant environmental problems
that could be avoided by selection of another alternative, or if there is
reason to believe that the preferred alternative may be changed at a later
stage, the reviewer should rate individual alternatives. The purpose of the
rating systeo is to synthesize the level of EPA's overall concern with the
proposal and to define the associated follow-up that will be conducted with
the lead agency.
(2) The alphabetical categories LO, EC, EO, and EU signify EPA's
evaluation of the environmental impacts of the proposal. Numerical categories
1,2, and 3 signify an evaluation of the adequacy of the draft EIS. A summary
of the rating definitions and the associated follow-up action is given in
b-14
-------
POLICY AND PROCEDURES 1640
figure 4-1 at the end of this chapter. This figure should be attached to
draft E1S comment letters when the lead agency may be unfamiliar with the EPA
rating system. To the maxinira extent possible, assignments of the alphabetical
rating will be based on the overall environmental impact of the proposed project
or action, including those project impacts that are not adequately addressed
in the draft EIS. When there is insufficient information in the draft E1S, the
determination of potential project impact may be based on other documents,
information, or on-site surveys. The comment letter should clearly identify
the source of information used by the EPA in evaluating the proposal.
(3) The rating of a draft EIS will consist of one of the category
combinations shown in the table below. As noted in the table and described in
chapter 5, the ERC must follow up with the lead agency in those cases where
significant problen areas are identified.
Lead Agency Follow-up on Draft
Category Pre-Notifi c a t ion EIS Comaent Letter
LO None None
EC-1, EC-2 None Phone Call
EO-1, EO-2 Phone call Meeting
EO-3, EU-1, EU-2, EL7-3, 3 Meeting Meeting
(A) For categories EO, EU, or 3, the ERC will ensure that the leaf
agency is notified of the general EPA concerns prior to receipt of EPA's consent
letter. For categories EU and 3, the ERC must attempt to meet with the lead
agency to discuss EPA's concerns prior to submission of the comment letter to
the lead agency. The purposes of such a meeting are to describe the specific
EPA concerns and discuss ways to resolve those concerns, to ensure that the
EPA review has correctly interpreted the proposal and supporting information,
and to become aware of any ongoing lead agency actions that might resolve the
EPA concerns. Tc assure the objectivity and independence of the EPA review
responsibility, the EPA comment letter itself and the assigned rating are not
subject to negotiation and should not be changed on the basis of the meeting
unless errors are discovered in EPA's understanding of the issues. However,
the reviewer may add in the letter an acknowledgment of any relevant new lead
agency activities that the reviewer believes could resolve the EPA concerns,
3. SCOPE OF COMMENTS ON THE DRAFT EIS.
a. General. In general, EPA's comments will focus on the proposal but
will, if necessary, review the complete range of alternatives, identifying
those that are environmentally unacceptable to EPA and identifying EPA's
preferred alternative. EPA's comment letter on the draft EIS will reflect all
of EPA's environmental responsibilities that may bear on the action. The
review will include EPA's assessment of the expected environmental impacts of
the action and, if substantive impacts are identified, an evaluation of the
adequacy of the supporting information presented in the EIS with suggestions
b-T5
-------
POLICY AND PROCEDURES 1640
for additional information that is needed. The EPA comment letter on draft
EIS's will:
(1) Explicitly reference EPA's review responsibilities under NEPA/
Section 309;
(2) Acknowledge positive lead agency responses to EPA scoping suggestions
or early coordination efforts;
(3) Provide a clear and concise description of EPA's substantive
concerns and recommendations with supporting details given in attachments;
(4) Include a rating of the proposal and, if appropriate, the adequacy
of the EIS in accordance with the criteria established in paragraphs 2 and A of
this chapter; and
(5) Give the nane and phone number of an appropriate EPA contact
person.
b. Mitigation (40 CFR 1508.20). EPA's comments should include measures
to avoid or minimize damage to the environment, or to protect, restore, and
enhance the environment. Suggestions for mitigation should be oriented
towards selection of mitigation measures that are technically feasible, of
long-term effectiveness, and have a high likelihood of being implemented.
c. Statutory Authorities. Special efforts should be made to identify
project impacts that may lead to possible violation of national environmental
standards or that might preclude or bias future issuance of EPA related envi-
ronmental permits. EPA comments regarding potential violations of standards
must be clearly stated in the letter, and an offer should be made to work with
the proposing agency to develop appropriate measures to reduce impacts.
d. Alternatives. If significant impacts are associated with the proposal
and they cannot be adequately citigated, EPA's comments should suggest an
environmentally preferable alternative, including if necessary, a new alterna-
tive. The suggested alternatives should be both "reasonable" and "feasible."
In this context, such an alternative is one that is practical in the technical,
economic, and social sense, even if the alternative is outside the jurisdiction
of the lead agency.
e. Purpose and Need. If a detailed review of alternatives is required,
the reviewer may have to address the purpose of and need for the proposed
action in order to determine to what degree an alternative would meet project
objectives. In these cases, the reviewer may comment on the technical
adequacy and accuracy of the EIS's methods for estimating the need for the
proposed action in cases where this affects the definition of reasonable and
feasible alternatives. Within the context of reviewing purpose and need, the
EPA may also comment on the economic justification of the project, and the
b-16
-------
POLICY AND PROCEDURES
relationship between the lead agency's economic analysis and any unquantified
environmental impacts, values, and anenities. The comments may also address
the technical validity and adequacy of the supporting data for the EIS's
economic analyses.
f. Projects Subject to Section 404(r) of the Clean Water Act. The Sectio
404 Coordinator will serve as an associate reviewer for those projects for
which an agency is seeking an exemption under Section 404(r), and shall concur
with the EPA comment letter. Section 404(r) provides that discharges of dredg
or fill material which are part of Federal construction projects specifically
authorized by Congress are not subject to regulation under Sections 301, 402,
or 404 of the Clean Water Act if the information on the effects of such dis-
charge including consideration of the Section 404(b)(l) Guidelines, is include
in the EIS for the project, and the EIS has been submitted to Congress before
the discharge occurs and before the authorization for the project occurs. In
accordance with the CEQ's guidance of November 17, 1980, EPA's comments on the
EIS will serve as the vehicle for informing the agency of EPA's determination
whether the proposed Section 404(r) exemption will be in compliance with the
requirements of the Section 404(b)(l) Guidelines. The comments should refer-
ence the CEQ Memorandum for Heads of Agencies, which provides guidance on
applying Section 404(r) and should include EPA's determination regarding:
(1) Whether the EIS contains requisite information on the proposed
discharges and other effects; and
(2) Whether the proposal is consistent with Section 404(b)(l)
Guidelines.
g. Projects Potentially Affecting a Designated "Sole Source" Aquifer
Subject to Section 1424(e) of the Safe Drinking Water Act.
(1) The regional office responsible for implementing the Safe
Drinking Water Act (SDWA) will act as an AR on any EIS for a project poten-
tially affecting a "sole source" aquifer designated under Section 1424(e) of
the SDWA. EPA's comments on the draft EIS will serve as EPA's preliminary
consents for the groundwater impact evaluation required under Section 1424(e),
which stipulates that no commitment to a project of Federal financial assis-
tance may be made, if the Administrator determines that a project has the
potential to contaminate a designated aquifer, so as to create a significant
hazard to public health. (Rules proposed to implement 1424(e) are found at
42 FR 51620, September 29, 1977.)
(2) If it is determined that a project may contaminate the aquifer
through the recharge zone so as to create a significant hazard to public heali
the ERC will, in consultation with the drinking water staff, prepare a briefii
memorandum and comment letter for the Regional Administrator. Copies of the
briefing memorandum and the proposed comment letter shall first be sent to thi
appropriate FAL, who will coordinate concurrence by the Headquarters Office o:
Drinking Water. The comment letter should cite EPA's authorities under Sectii
b-17
-------
POLICY AND PROCEDURES
309/NEPA and Section 1424(e) of SDWA, and state that the project is a candidate
for both referral to the CEQ and a Section 1424(e) determination*
4. PLATING SYSTEM CRITERIA.
a. Rating the Environmental Impact of the Action.
(1) LO (Lack of Objections). The review has not identified any
potential environmental impacts requiring substantive changes to the preferred
alternative. The review nay have disclosed opportunities for application of
mitigation necsures that could be accomplished with no more than minor changes
to the proposed action.
(2) EC (Environcental Concerns). The review has identified envi-
ronmental impacts that should be avoided in crder to fully protect the envi-
ronment. Corrective measures may require changes to the preferred alternative
or application of mitigation measures that can reduce the environmental
impact.
(3) EO (Environmental Objections). The review has identified signif-
icant environmental impacts that should be avoided in order to adequately
protept the environr.er.t. Corrective measures r.ay require substantial changes
to the preferred alternative or consideration of some other project alter-
native (including the no action alternative or a new alternative). The basis
for environmental objections can include situations:
(a) Where en action might violate or be inconsistent with
achievement or maintenance of a national environmental standard;
Where the Federal agency violates its own "substantive
environmental requirements that relate to EPA's areas of jurisdiction or
expertise;
(c) Where there is a violation of an EPA policy declaration;
(d) Where there are no applicable standards or where applicable
standards will not be violated but there is potential for significant environ-
mental degradation that could be corrected by project modification or other
feasible alternatives; or
(e) Where proceeding with the proposed action would set a
precedent for future actions that collectively could result in significant
environmental impacts.
(4) EU (Environnentally Unsatisfactory). The review has identified
adverse environmental impacts that are of sufficient magnitude that EPA
believes the proposed action must not proceed as proposed. The basis for an
environmentally unsatisfactory determination consists of identification of
b-18
-------
POLICY AND PROCEDURES
environmentally objectionable icpacts as defined above and one; or core of the
following conditions:
(a) The potential violation of or inconsistency with a national
environmental standard is substantive and/or will occur on a long-term basis;
(b) There are no applicable standards but the severity,
duration, or geographical scope of the impacts associated with the proposed
action warrant special attention; or
(c) The potential environmental impacts resulting from the
proposed action are of national importance because of the threat to national
environmental resources or to environmental policies.
b. Adequacy of the Impact Statement.
(1) "1." (Adequate). The draft EIS adequately sets forth the environ-
mental impact (s) of the preferred alternative and those of the alternatives
reasonably available to the project or action. No further analysis or data
collection is necessary, but the reviewer may suggest the addition of
clarifying language or information.
(2) "2" (Insufficient Information). The draft EIS does not contain
sufficient information to fully assess environmental impacts that should be
avoided in order to fully protect the environment, or the reviewer has
identified new reasonably available alternatives that are within the spectru-
of alternatives analyzed in the draft EIS, which could reduce the environ-
mental impacts of the proposal. The identified additional information, data,
analyses, or discussion should be included in the final EIS.
(3) "3" (Inadequate). The draft EIS does not adequately assess the
potentially significant environmental impacts of the proposal, or the reviewer
has identified new, reasonably available, alternatives, that are outside of
the spectrum of alternatives analyzed in the draft EIS, which should be
analyzed in order to reduce the potentially significant environmental impacts.
The identified additional information, data, analyses, or discussions are of
such a magnitude that they should have full public review at a draft stage.
This rating indicates EPA's belief that the draft EIS does not meet the
purposes of NEPA and/or the Section 309 review, and thus should be formally
revised and made available for public comment in a supplemental or revised
draft EIS.
5. APPROVING AND DISTRIBUTING COMMENTS ON DRAFT EIS'S.
a. Categories LO, EC, EO, 1, or 2. For draft EIS's rated LO, EC, EO, 1,
or 2 the comments will be signed by the appropriate regional or Headquarters
official and the ERC will distribute EPA's comments in accordance with
subparagraph 5c of this chapter.
b-19
-------
POLICY AND PROCEDURES Ib-ij
b. Categories EU or 3. For draft EIS's where the ERC is proposing a
rating of EU or 3, the EPA comment letter must be cleared by the Assistant
Administrator for External Affairs prior to release. If the review is a regional
action, the draft letter will be submitted through the OFA for clearance. The
draft comment letter must be submitted at least 5 working days prior to the
due date and the proposed rating must have been approved by the regional signing
official. In every case where a draft statement has been rated EU or 3, the
Assistant Administrator, OEA, will send a copy of the EPA comment letter to
the CEQ. In addition, where the EPA has commented to a regional office of the
originating agency, appropriate officials within the headquarters office of
the originating agency will also be informed. If a communications strategy
has been developed for the action, the release of information should follow
that strategy.
c. Checklist for Distribution of Agency Comments on the Draft EIS.*
Addressee Number of Copies
Agency submitting statement Original
CEQ (if EU or 3) with transnittal letter 1 copy-
Office of Public Affairs (if 1 copy
comments are rated EU or 3)
EPA offices which served as associate 1 copy
reviewers
Office of Federal Activities 2 copies
Attn: MIU
6. REPORTING ANT) CONTROL. All draft EIS's under review, all time extensions,
and all comment letters on draft EIS's will be entered in the MIU data zar.age-
tnent syster.. All EPA cc^rent letters and associated correspondence on draft
EIS's will be retained in the official project file.
*To the maximum extent practicable, the comment letter should not be dis-
tributed to parties outside of the EPA until after the original has been
received by the lead agency.
-------
POLICY AND PROCEDURES 1640
SVMMAJU or RATING
AND FOUOW-IP ACTION*
Environmental Impact of th« Action
L0~!^cit of Objection*
The EPA review has not Identified any potential environmental Impact*
requiring substantive change* to the proposal. The review m*y have disclosed
opportunities for application of mitigation Mature* that could be
accomplished with no acre than minor change* to the proposal.
EC—Environmental Concern*
The EPA review hat identified environmental impact* that should be avoided In
order to fully protect the environment. Corrective Beaaures may require
changes to the preferrec alternative or Application ef eitigatlor. aeasures
that can reduce the environmental impact. EPA would like to work with the
lead agency to reduce these Impact*.
EO—Er.viror.oental Objection*
The EPA review
-------
POLICY AND PROCEDURES 1640
CHAPTER 5 - POST-DRAFT EIS FOLLOW-UP
1. POLICY. It is EPA's policy to conduct follow-up discussions with the lead
agency to ensure that EPA's concerns raised at the draft EIS stage are fully
understood and considered by the lead agency. To the extent resources allow,
follow-up efforts should exceed the minimum required by this chapter and
paragraph 2b(3) of chapter 4.
2. POST-DRAFT CONSULTATIONS. In cases where a draft EIS is rated EO, EU, or
3, the ERC must initiate consultation with the lead agency. Agency consul-
tation will continue at increasing levels of management, through the EPA
Assistant Administrator level, as appropriate, until EPA's concerns are
resolved or further negotiations are pointless. For those actions where the
region is the PR, the ERC will work through the appropriate FAL to coordinate
the consultation efforts at the regional and Headquarters levels. The ERC
and/or FAL should be prepared to review the project in the field, to develop
additional information, and/or to work with the agency to inprove the proposed
action and the supporting final EIS. When substantive consultation meetings
are held, the ERC must document the outcome and, as appropriate, respond in
writing to the lead agency to acknowledge any points of agreement, and to
restate any unresolved issues.
3. STATUS REPORTS.
a. After consulting or meeting with the lead agency concerning draft EIS's
rated EU or 3, the ERC will prepare a status memorandum for the Assistant
Administrator, OEA, through the Director, OFA, and, if it is a regional action,
for the Regional Administrator. This memorandum should summarize: (1) the
progress of the consultations; (2) the remaining unresolved issues; (3) the
positions of other affected Federal agencies; and (4) a prognosis for the
resolution of remaining issues.
b. The ERC will periodically assess the lead agency's progress in responding
to EPA's concerns on draft EIS's rated EU or 3. It is the ERC's responsibility
to anticipate, and make early preparation for, those final EIS's which will be
so unresponsive to EPA's concerns that a recommendation for referral of the
final EIS to the CEQ will be required.
4. REPORTING AND CONTROL. All correspondence regarding post-draft consulta-
tions and agreements must be retained in the official project file. For all
draft EIS's which have been rated EU or 3, the official file must also contain
all material that may be needed for a formal referral package.
b-22
-------
POLICY AND PROCEDURES 1640
CHAPTER 6 - REVIEW OF FINAL EIS'S
1. POLICY. It is EPA's policy to conduct detailed reviews of those final
EIS's which had significant issues raised by the EPA at the draft EIS stage.
Each final EIS will be checked to determine whether the statement adequately
resolves the problems identified in the EPA review of the draft EIS, or
whether there has been a substantive change in the proposal. A detailed
review and submission of comments on the final EIS will be done for those
actions rated EO, EU, or 3 at the draft stage. A detailed review on other
final EIS's may be done if the ERC determines that conditions warrant it.
2. FINAL EIS REVIEW MANAGEMENT. Except as noted below, the review management
procedures and responsibilities given in chapter 2 apply to the review of
final EIS's.
a. Designating Lead Responsibility and Principal and Associate Reviewer?.
Lead responsibility for the final EIS will be the same as for the draft EIS
unless other arrangements have been made with the MIL1. If possible, the sar.e
principal and associate reviewers who dealt with the draft EIS will be
assigned to review the final EIS.
b. Establishing Deadlines and Tice Extensions.
(1) Deadlines. Unless a different deadline is officially established
for receiving comments, EPA will respond to a final EIS within 30 days fron
the start of the official review period. The official EIS due dates are
listed in COMDATE. The PR will set internal deadlines to ensure EPA's
comments are received within the official comment period. All final EIS's
which are candidates for referral to the CEQ, will be given priority review in
accordance with the internal deadlines specified in chapter 9.
(2) Time Extensions. Requests for extensions of review periods on
final EIS's should be kept to a minimum. In general, review period extensions,
on final EIS's should not be requested unless important environmental issues
are involved and detailed substantive comments are being prepared. Time
extensions should normally not exceed 15 days. Time extensions for a referral
deadline will be requested in accordance with the procedures in chapter 9.
c. Categorizing Final EIS's. The alpha numeric rating system used for
draft EIS's will be applied to final EIS's for internal management purposes
only (see chapter 4, paragraph 4). The EPA rating is not to be included in
comment letters on final EIS's. Instead, the comments will rely wholly on
narrative explanations to describe the environmental impact of the proposed
action or the responsiveness or unresponsiveness of the EIS. The PR will
include the assigned rating when entering the action into the MIU data
management system.
b-23
-------
POLICY AND PROCEDURES
3. SCOPE OF COMMENTS OX FINAL EIS'S.
a. General.
(1) Except in unusual circumstances, the review of final EIS's will
be directed to the major unresolved issues, focusing on the impacts of the
project rather than on the adequacy of the statement. Except in unusual circum-
stances, the scope of review will be limited to issues raised in EPA's comments
on the draft E1S that have not been resolved in the final EIS, and any new,
potentially significant impacts that have been identified as a result of
information made available after publication of the draft EIS.
(2) Within 5 days after the start of the review period for the final
EIS, the PR vill make a. preliminary determination as to whether the action
meets the criteria for "environmentally unsatisfactory" as set forth in chapter
4, paragraph 4 of this Manual. If the action is determined to be environsentaily
unsatisfactory, the procedures set forth in chapter 9 of this Manual will be
followed.
(3) For final EIS's which had drafts categorized as LO, the PR may
decide that no formal comments on the final EIS will be submitted to the lead
agency. Written comments will be prepared in other cases and when the agency
has made substantive codifications in the proposed action in comparison to the
draft EIS. In addition, written comments will be prepared for final EIS's
that involve Section 404(r) or Section 1424(e) issues.
(4) In those cases involving significant mitigation requirements or
where the proposed agency action is not clear, EPA's comments on the final EIS
will also include a request for a copy of the Record of Decision.
b. Mitigation Measures. If a final EIS identifies for the first tine, or
modifies the agency's preferred alternative, EPA's review should include
consideration of any additional specific mitigation measures necessary to reduce
ar.y adverse impacts of that alternative. When mitigation measures are recorar.ended,
the comment letter should suggest that the lead agency include these measures
in their Record of Decision as specific conditions on their permits or grants.
Where mitigation measures are directly related to the acceptability of the
action, the comment letter should include a request that the lead agency keep
EPA informed of progress in carrying out the mitigation measures proposed by
the EPA.
c. Projects Under Section 4Q4(r) of the Clean Water Act.
(1) The Section 404 Coordinator will serve as an associate reviewer on
all final EIS's involving a potential 404 permit. In order to satisfy the
provisions of Section 404(r), the EIS process oust be completed before Congress
approves requests for authorizations and appropriations. Pursuant to the CEQ
Memorandum for Heads of Agencies, November 17, 1980, completion of the EIS
process includes resolution of any pre-decision referrals.
b-24
-------
POLICY AND PROCEDURES 1640
1,
(2) The comment letter on a final EIS seeking a 404(r) exemption will
include EPA's determination regarding: (a) whether the EIS contains requisite
information on the proposed discharges and other effects, and (b) whether the
proposal is consistent with the 404(b)(l) Guidelines.
(3) If a negative determination on either (2)(a) or (b) is made, the
appropriate FAL will be informed and will coordinate with the lead agency to
ensure that the required statement of EPA's determination is included in the
lead agency's congressional submission. The FAL will also ensure that EPA's
views regarding an exemption are effectively represented in the Office of
Management and Budget's (OMB's) legislative and budget processes.
d. Projects Subject to Groundwater Evaluation Under Section 1424(e) of
the SDWA.
(1) The regional drinking water program staff will serve as an AR on
the review of any EIS for a project potentially affecting a designated "sole
source" aquifer and will be responsible for the preliminary determination of
project compliance with the requirements of Section 1424(e) of the SDWA.
(2) If the regional drinking water program staff determines that a
project may contaainate the aquifer through the recharge zone so as to create
a significant hazard to public health, the ERC will, in consultation with the
regional drinking water staff and appropriate Headquarters FAL, prepare a
briefing memorandum and comment letter for the Regional Administrator. Upon
approval, the Regional Administrator shall submit the package to the Director,
OFA, who shall coordinate the appropriate Headquarters approval and submission
to the Administrator for action.
4. UNRESPONSIVE FINAL EIS.
(1) If the lead agency prepares a final EIS rather than a supplement
or revised draft EIS in response to an EPA "3" rating, or if there are signifi-
cant new circumstances or information relevant to areas of significant environ-
mental impact, the review should follow the procedures of chapter 4 to determine
if the proposal is either "environmentally unsatisfactory" or "inadequate."
If it is determined that either of these situations apply, the procedures of
chapter 9 should be initiated to determine if a referral of the proposal to
the CEQ is warranted.
(2) If a refferal is not warranted, but the EIS contains insufficient
information to assess potentially significant environmental impacts of the
proposed action, a request should be made for the agency to prepare a supple-
mental EIS. In such cases, the EPA comment letter must demonstrate that the
final EIS is unresponsive to EPA's comments on the draft EIS and 'state EPA's
belief that the final EIS is inadequate to meet the purposes of the NEPA and/or
the EPA review, and therefore should be formally supplemented (40 CFR 1502.9(c)),
b-25
-------
POLICY AND PROCEDURES 16-.'J
5. DISTRIBUTION OF THE FINAL EIS COMMENT LETTER. The ERC will coordinate
distribution of the final EIS comment letter in accordance with chapter H,
paragraph 5 of this Manual (or in the case of a referral, chapter 9, paragraph
5) and any applicable communications strategy. To the maximum extent practi-
cable, the comment letter will not be distributed externally until after the
lead agency has received the original.
6. REPORTING AND CONTROL. All final ElS's, comment letters, no consent
memoranda, and correspondence related to time extensions will be entered in
the MIU data management system and retained in the official project file. The
final EIS rating must also be entered into the MIU system (even if no comment
letter was sent).
b-26
-------
POLICY AND PROCEDURES 1640
CHAPTER 7 - MONITORING AND FOLLOW-UP
1. POLICY. It is EPA's policy to conduct, on a selected basis, follow-up
activities on comments on final EIS's to ensure that: (1) the EPA partici-
pates as fully as possible in any post-£IS efforts designed to assist agency
decisionmaking; (2) agreed upon mitigation measures are identified in the
Record of Decision; and (3) the agreed upon mitigation measures are fully
implemented (e.g., permit conditions, operating plan stipulations, etc.).
2. MONITORING AKD FOLLOW-UP.
a. After transmittal of EPA's comments on the final E1S, the PR will, as
appropriate, ensure that:
(1) EPA receives a copy of the Record of Decision;
(2) The lead agency has incorporated into the Record of Decision all
agreed upon mitigation and other impact reduction measures; and
(3) The lead agency has included all agreed upon measures as condi-
tions in grants, permits, or other approvals, where appropriate.
b. Officials who could be subsequently involved in the proposed action
should be informed of the final EPA position on the EIS (e.g., regional or
State enforcement officials for NPDES permitting, regional enforcement
officials for Section 404 enforcement, regional air progran or enforcement
officials for transportation control strategy compliance and State implemen-
tation plan requirements).
c. Where resources allow, the ERC is encouraged to assess the level of
compliance and effectiveness of Federal agency mitigation measures. The ERC
is responsible for determining when and hov EPA's final EIS follow-up and
monitoring should be carried out.
3. REVIEW OF THE RECORD OF DECISION.
a. The PR should review the Record of Decision on all final EIS's on which
the EPA has expressed environmental objections, and/or those where the EPA has
negotiated mitigation measures or changes in project design.
b. The ERC will bring problems or discrepancies between the Record of
Decision and agreed upon mitigation measures to the attention of the lead
agency. Any unresolved issues should be coordinated with the appropriate FAL,
and, through the FAL, with the lead agency's headquarters office, and if
appropriate, with the CEQ.
*• REPORTING AM) CONTROL. All correspondence regarding the Record of
Decision will be recorded in the official project file.
b-27
-------
POLICY AND PROCEDURES 1640
CHAPTER 6 - REVIEW OF DOCUMENTS OTHER THAN EIS'S
1. POLICY. The Environmental Review Process will include review of those
proposed Federal agency actions, legislation, regulations, and notices which
may not be contained in an EIS, but which could lead to or have significant
environmental impacts.
2. GENERAL REVIEW PROCEDURES.
a. Lead Responsibility for Review of Other Actions. Lead responsibilities
for non-EIS actions are, in general, as defined below but may be adjusted in
accordance with the procedures in chapter 2 of this Manual.
(1) The OFA will have lead responsibility on all regulation reviews
and the appropriate FAL will determine which proposed regulations should be
reviewed;
(2) The Office of Legislative Analysis (OLA), within the Office of
External Affairs, will have lead responsibility on all non-EIS legislation
reviews and will determine when the EPA will prepare formal comments on
legislation; and
(3) Overall management of the review of non-EIS agency actions,
including environmental assessments and Findings of No Significant Impact
(FONSI's), license applications, etc., is the responsibility of the ERC
managing the liaison activity that involves the action.
b. Conducting Reviews of Other Actions. The ERC will follow the reviev
coordination procedures of chapter 2 to ensure that EPA's comments are coor-
dinated and comprehensive and are received by the originating agency within
its decisionr.ak.ing period. If the ERC believes that an EIS is needed or. the
proposed action, the procedures found in paragraph 6 of this chapter should be
followed.
c. Rating Other Federal Actions. Except for the referral criteria, the
rating system for draft icpact statements pursuant to chapter 4 of this Manual
will not be used for non-EIS actions. If the PR determines that a Federal
agency action covered by this chapter is environmentally unsatisfactory in
accordance with the criteria listed in chapter A, thus warranting a referral
to the CEQ, then the procedures found in paragraph 7 of this chapter will
apply.
3. LEGISLATION REVIEWS. The OLA has lead responsibility on all proposed
legislation not accompanied by an EIS. The OLA is responsible for coordinating
with other EPA program and regional offices, and for preparing EPA's comments
on all legislation. Any ERC receiving proposed legislation from another Federal
agency should forward it directly to the OLA for action.
b-28
-------
POLICY AND PROCEDURES 16-40
4. REGULATION REVIEWS. The FAL's will monitor the Federal Register regularly
to determine which environmental regulations proposed by their assigned
Federal agencies are significant and should be reviewed. FAL's will normally
act as PR's for regulations proposed by the agencies assigned to them. The
Director, OFA, will be the signatory official for cooments on these regula-
tions. The FAL will be responsible for ensuring that the regions and EPA
program offices impacted by the regulations will be designated as AR's.
5. OTHER AGENCY ACTION REVIEWS. The ERC nay determine that other non-EIS
Federal actions such as environmental assessments (40 CFR 1508.9), FONSI's (40
CFR 1508.13), issue papers, or technical support documents should be reviewed.
The ERC's decision to review these actions will take into account the relation-
ship of the proposed action to other Federal actions and how the document fits
into the overall decisionmaking process.
6. DETERMINING THE KEEP FOR AN EIS. Whenever the ERC determines on the basis
of investigating a public inquiry, reviewing a regulation or environmental
assessment/FONSI, or by other means, that a Federal agency has not or does net
intend to prepare an EIS on an action that the EPA believes could signif-
icantly affect the quality of the human environment, the following procedures
pertain.
a. If it is a regional action, the ERC will immediately contact the
appropriate FAL and develop a coordinated regional/headquarters approach for
working with the lead agency.
b. The ERC will initiate consultation with the Federal agency responsible
for the major action to explore the necessity for EIS preparation. Discus-
sions with the agency will be couched in terns of suggested action for the
Federal agency's consideration rather than as an EPA requirement. It is the
lead agency's responsibility to decide if an EIS will be prepared.
c. If, after such consultation, the ERC believes that the requirements of
Section 102(2)(C) of KEPA are applicable, the PR will prepare a comment letter
to the Federal agency responsible for the proposed action. The comment letter
should include EPA's assessment of the action and reasons why the EPA believes
the agency should prepare an EIS.
7. ENVIRONMENTALLY UNSATISFACTORY ACTIONS. If the ERC determines that a
non-EIS action is environmentally unsatisfactory at the draft stage (in accord-
ance with the EU criteria specified in chapter 4), the proposed comment letter
must be cleared by the Assistant Administrator, OEA, prior to release. The
procedures of chapter 4 must be followed in obtaining this clearance. At the
time of the clearance request, or if the non-EIS action is a final action, the
ERC and/or appropriate FAL will set up internal consultation and referral
procedures similar to those outlined in chapter 9 of this Manual. The proce-
dures will also consider the option of requesting an EIS. The procedures will
ensure that the referral will take place no later than 5 days before the "final"
lead agency action. For example, in the case of proposed regulations, the
referral must occur prior to publication of the final rule.
b-29
-------
POLICY AND PROCEDURES 1640
8. REPORTING AND CONTROL. Regulations under review and the resulting comment
letters, as well as comment letters on any other non-ElS action determined to
be environmentally unsatisfactory, will be entered into the MIU data
management system. All agency comment letters and official agency actions
related to the Environmental Review Process will be retained in the official
project file.
b-30
-------
POLICY AND PROCEDURES 1640
CHAPTER 9 - REFERRALS TO THE COUNCIL ON ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY
1. POLICY. The EPA authority for referring proposed regulations or major
Federal actions to the Council on Environmental Quality (40 CFR 1504 and
Section 309 of the Clean Air Act) will be used only when significant environ-
mental issues are involved and only after every effort to resolve these issues
at the agency level has been exhausted.
2. CRITERIA FOR REFERRAL. In order to meet a determination of "unsatisfactory
from the standpoint of public health or welfare or environmental quality," the
proposed action must satisfy the "environmentally unsatisfactory" criteria
given in chapter 4.
3. REFERRAL PROCEDURES.
a. The CEQ has established a 25-day time period, starting froc the date
of the Notice of Availability of the final EIS in the Federal Register, for
referring final EIS's (40 CFR 1504.3(b)). Extensions of EIS referral periods
can be granted only by the lead agency (40 CFR 1504.3(b)) and must be specific
to the 25-day referral period rather than the overall comment period.
b. Since EPA has authority under Section 309 of the Clean Air Act to
refer proposed regulations and major Federal actions for which no EIS has been
prepared, the intent of the 25-day deadline is incorporated in the procedures
of this section by requiring all EPA referrals to be made no later than 5 days
before the end of the comment period or, in any case, 5 days before the final
action takes place.
4. REFERRAL PACKAGE DEVELOPMENT SEQUENCE.
a. The objective of the referral package development sequence require-
ments in this section is to ensure that the referral package is ready within
the rigid 25-day time limit and, simultaneously, allow for a final attempt to
resolve EPA's concerns with the lead agency. The key elements in this
sequence are:
(1) Early identification of the potential referral action by the
PR/ERC;
(2) Approval of the referral action by the Regional Administrator (if
a regional action) and the Assistant Administrator, OEA;
(3) An attempt to meet with the lead agency and work out EPA's
concerns; and
(4) Preparation of the referral package to preserve the referral
option if discussions with the lead agency do not resolve EPA's concerns.
b. Specific procedures for the referral development sequence are described
below. To facilitate this description, it is assumed that the referral action
b-31
-------
POLICY AND PROCEDURES 16^0
is taken by a region. The sace procedures apply where Headquarters has ths
referral action except there would be no regional requirements.
(1) Withr'n 5 days after the beginning of the review period the PR, in
consultation with the ERC, will make a preliminary determination as to whether
the action is unsatisfactory from the standpoint of public health, welfare, or
environmental quality in accordance with the EU criteria in chapter 4. If a
referral is indicated, the ERC will notify the appropriate FAL and proceed with
development of the materials described below.
(2) Within 10 days from the start of the 25-day referral period, the
ERC, in consultation with the FAL, will prepare and submit to the Regional
Administrator and the Assistant Administrator, OEA, through the Director, OFA,
a briefing memorandum and interir. response to the lead agency. The interim
response will state that the EPA is considering a referral to the CEO and will
request a meeting and tine extension to allow for a resolution of EPA's
concerns. The briefing memorandum will contain the following information:
(a) Brief description cf the proposed action;
(b) Reason the action is environmentally unsatisfactory;
(c) Description of the attempts to resolve differences with the
lead agency;
(d) Positions of other affected Federal agencies, groups, and
public officials; and
(e) Recommended strategy for resolution of remaining issues.
(3) If the lead agency grants a time extension, EPA negotiations will
take place and, if necessary, the referral package will be developed according
to the extended referral tine period. If the lead agency grants a tine exten-
sion of the referral period by phone, the ERC will immediately prepare a letter
to the lead agency documenting the agreement. If a time extension is net
granted, the referral preparation will proceed on the basis of the original
referral deadline.
(4) No later than 10 days before the referral deadline, the FAL will
prepare a short information memorandum for the Administrator describing poten-
tial referral and the status of unresolved issues; a one-page "talking points"
paper; and an outline of a communication strategy for notifying all interested
groups of EPA's action. Development of the communication strategy is to be
coordinated with the immediate Office of the Assistant Administrator for
External Affairs.
(5) No later than 7 days before the referral deadline, the final
referral package, prepared in accordance with paragraph 6 of this chapter and
approved by the Regional Administrator, will be forwarded to the Director, OFA.
b-32
------- OCR error (C:\Conversion\JobRoot\000002PG\tiff\20006YGA.tif): Unspecified error
-------
POLICY AND PROCEDURES 16^''
X
(d) Identification of environmentally preferable alternatives;
(e) Identification of agreed upon facts;
(f) Identification of material facts in controversy; and
(g) Brief review of attempts by the EPA to resolve the concerns
with the lead agency.
6. APPROVING AKD DISTRIBUTING THE REFERRAL PACKAGE. After the Administrator
signs the referral comment letters to the lead agency and to the CEQ, the
letters will be hand-carried to the addressees. The appropriate FAL will then
ensure follow-up distribution of the CEQ referral package as follows and/or ir.
accordance with the communications strategy:
Addressee Nusber of Copies
Lead agency 3 copies
CEQ 4 copies
EPA Administrator 2 copies
Assistant Administrator, OEA 2 copies
Headquarters Office of 2 copies
Public Affairs
Appropriate regional 3 copies
office
Appropriate regional 2 copies
Office of Public Affairs
Director, OFA 1 copy
Managenent Information Unit, OFA 1 copy
EPA offices which 1 copy
served as associate reviewers
Appropriate elected officials Determined by the Office of
Congressional Liaison
7. REPORTING AND CONTROL.
The referral package, all related correspondence, and documentation of
time extensions will be retained in the official project file. Time extensions
will be entered into the MIL' data management system.
b-34
-------
§4371
TITLE 42-THE PUBLIC HEALTH AND WELFARE
TITLE 42-THE PUBLIC HEALTH AND WELFARE
84374
the Agency to defray the costs of use by outside
groups or individuals.
(b) Rules and regulations
The Administrator may promulgate regula-
tions to cover such use of Agency facilities in
accordance with generally accepted accounting.
safety, and laboratory practices.
(c) Waiver of reimbursement by Administrator
When he finds it is In the public interest the
Administrator may waive reimbursement • or
fees for outside use of Agency facilities by non-
profit private or public entities.
(Pub. L. 96-229. 5 5, Apr. 7. 1980, 94 Stat. 328.)
CODIFICATION
Section was enacted as part of the Environmental
Research, Development, and Demonstration Authori-
sation Act of 1980, and not u part of the National En-
vironmental Policy Act of 11)69 which comprises this
chapter.
CHAPTER 56-ENV1RONMENTAL QUALITY
IMPROVEMENT
4371. Congressional findings, declarations, and
purposes.
4372. Office of Environmental Quality.
(a) Establishment: Director: Deputy Di-
rector.
(b) Compensation of Deputy Director.
(c) Employment of personnel, experts,
and consultants: compensation.
(d) Duties and functions of Director.
(e) Authority of Director to contract.
4373. Referral of Environmental Quality Reports
to standing committees having jurisdiction.
4374. Authorization of appropriations.
94371. Confreuional findings, declaration*, and pur-
poses
(a) The Congress finds—
(1) that man has caused changes In the en-
vironment:
(2) that many of these changes may affect
the relationship between man and his envi-
ronment; and
(3) that population increases and urban
concentration contribute directly to pollution
and the degradation of our environment.
(bXl) The Congress declares that there Is ft
national policy for the environment which pro-
vides for the enhancement of environmental
quality. This policy Is evidenced by statutes
heretofore enacted relating to the prevention.
abatement, and control of environmental pollu-
tion, water and land resources, transportation,
and economic and regional development.
(2) The primary responsibility for implement-
Ing this policy rests with State and local gov-
ernment.
(3) The Federal Government encourages and
supports implementation of this policy through
appropriate regional organizations established
under existing law.
(c) The purposes of this chapter are—
(1) to assure that each Federal department
and agency conducting or supporting public
works activities which affect the environment
shall Implement the policies established
under existing law; and
(2) to authorize an Office of Environmental
Quality, which, notwithstanding any other
provision of law, shall provide the profession-
al and administrative staff for the Council on
Environmental Quality established by Public
Law 91-190.
(Pub. L. 91-224, title II. i 202, Apr. 3, 1970, 84
Stat. 114.)
REFERENCES IN TEXT
Pub. L. 91-190, referred to In subsec. (c>(2). Is Pub L.
81-190, Jan. 1. 1970. 83 Stat. 852, as amended, known
as the National Environmental Policy Act of 1MI,
which is classified generally to chapter 56 (14321 et
seq.) of this title. For complete classification of this
Act to the Code, see Short Title note set out under
section 4321 of this title and Tables.
SHORT TITLE
Section 201 of Pub. L. 91-224 provided that: "Thli
title [enacting this chapter] may be cited as the 'Envi-
ronmental Quality Improvement Act of 1970'."
> 4372. Office of Environmental Quality
(a) Establishment; Director, Deputy Director
There is established in the Executive Office
of the President an office to be known as the
Office of Environmental Quality (hereafter in
this chapter referred to as the "Office"). The
Chairman of the Council on Environmental
Quality established by Public Law 91-190 shall
be the Director of the Office. There shall be In
the Office a Deputy Director who shall be ap-
pointed by the President, by and with the
advice and consent of the Senate.
(b) Compensation of Deputy Director
The compensation of the Deputy Director
shall be fixed by the President at a rate not In
excess of the annual rate of compensation pay-
able to the Deputy Director of the Office of
Management and Budget.
(c) Employment of personnel, experts, and consult-
ants; compensation
The Director Is authorized to employ such of-
ficers and employees (Including experts and
consultants) as may be necessary to enable the
Office to carry out Its functions under this
chapter and Public Law 91-190, except that he
may employ no more than ten specialists and
other experts without regard to the provisions
of title 5. governing appointments In the com-
petitive service, and pay such specialists and ex-
perts without regard to the provisions of chap-
ter 51 and subchapter III of chapter 53 of such
title relating to classification and General
Schedule pay rates, but no such specialist or
expert shall be paid at a rate In excess of the
maximum rate for OS-18 of the Genera) Sched-
ule under section 5332 of title 5.
(d) Duties and functions of Director
In carrying out his functions the Director
shall assist and advise the President on policies
and programs of the Federal Government af-
fecting environmental quality by—
(1) providing the professional and adminis-
trative staff and support for the Council on
Environmental Quality established by Public
Law 91-190.
(2) assisting the Federal agencies and de-
partments In appraising the effectiveness of
existing and proposed facilities, programs.
Policies and activities of the Federal Govern-
ment and those specific major projects desig-
nated by the President which do not require
individual project authorization by Congress.
which affect environmental quality;
(3) reviewing the adequacy of existing sys-
tems for monitoring and predicting environ-
mental changes in order to achieve effective
coverage and efficient use of research facili-
ties and other resources; ^...Hfl.
(4) promoting the advancement of scientific
knowledge of the effects of actions and tech-
nology on the environment and encourage
the development of the means to prevent or
reduce adverse effects that endanger the
health and well-being of man;
(5) assisting in coordinating among the Fed-
eral department* and agencies those pro-
grams and activities which affect, protect,
and improve environmental quality;
(8) assisting the Federal departments and
agencies In the development and Interrela-
tionship of environmental quality criteria and
standards established through the Federal
Government; .
(7) collecting, collating, analyzing, and in-
terpreting data and Information on environ-
mental quality, ecological research, and eval-
uation.
(e) Authority of Director to contract
The Director Is authorized to contract with
public or private agencies, institutions, and or-
ganizations and with individuals without regard
to section 3324(a) and (b) of title 31 and section
5 of title 41 in carrying out his functions.
(Pub. L. 91-224. title II. i 203, Apr 3. 1970, 84
Stat 114; 1970 Reorg. Plan No. 2, 5 102, eff.
July 1,1970, 35 F.R. 7959, 84 Stat. 2085.)
REFERENCES IN TEXT
Pub L. 91-190, referred to in subsecs. (a), (c). (d). Is
Pub. L. 91-190. Jan. 1. 1970, 83 Stat. 852, as amended.
known as the National Environment*! Policy Act of
1989, which U classified generally to chapter 55 (« 4321
et seq.) or this title. For complete clMslflcatlon of this
Actto the Code, see Short Title note set out under
section 4321 of this title and Tables.
The provisions of title 5, governing appointments in
the competitive service, referred to In subsec. (c) _are
classified to section 3301 et seq. of Title 5. Govern-
ment Organization and Employees.
The General Schedule, referred to In subsec. (c). is
set out under section 5332 of Title 5.
CODIFICATION
in subsec. (e). "section 3324(a) and (b) of title 31"
was substituted for reference to section 3848 of the
Revised Statutes (31 UJ3.C. 52») on authority of Pub.
L. 97-258. I 4(b), Sept. 13, 1982, 98 Stat. 1087 the first
section of which enacted Title 31, Money and Finance.
TRANSFER OF PUHCTIOHS
All functions vested by law (including_ reorganization
plan) In the Bureau of the Budget or the Director of
the Bureau of the Budget were transferred to the
President of the United States by section 101 of
Reorg. Plan No. 2 of 1970, eff. July 1. 1970, 35 F.R.
7969. 84 Stat. 2085. set out In the_Appendl.L^ ™'e 5.
Government Organization and Employees. Section 102
of Reorg Plan No. 2 of 1970, redeslgnated the Bureau
of the Budget u the Office of Management and
Budget.
8 4373. Referral of Environmental Quality Reports to
standing committees having jurisdiction
Each Environmental Quality Report required
by Public Law 91-190 shall, upon transmittal to
Congress, be referred to each standing commit-
tee having Jurisdiction over any part of the sub-
ject matter of the Report.
(Pub. L. 91-224. title II, i 204, Apr. 3, 1970. 84
Stat. 115.)
REFERENCES in TEXT
Pub L. 91-190, referred to in text. Is Pub. L. »1-1»»,
Jan. 1, 1970, 83 Stat. 852, as amended, known M the
National Environmental Policy Act of 1968. which to
classified generally to chapter 56 (14321 et seq.) of
thTtitSe. For complete classification of thtoActto.the
Code, see Short Title note set out under section 4321
of this title and Tables.
8 4374. Authorization of appropriations
There are hereby authorized to be appropri-
ated for the operations of the Office of Envi-
ronmental Quality and the Council on Environ-
mental Quality not to exceed the following
sums for the following fiscal years which sums
are In addition to those contained in Public Law
01—190*
(a) $2.126.000 for the fiscal year ending Sep-
tember 30,1979.
(b) $3 000,000 for each of the fiscal years
ending September 30, 1980, and September
(c) $44 000 for the fiscal years ending Sep-
tember 30, 1982,1983. and 1984.
(Pub L. 91-224. title II. 5 205. Apr. 3. 1970, 84
Stat 115*Pub. L. 93-36. May 18. 1973, 87 Stat.
72 Pub. L. 94-52. S 1. July 3. 1975, 89 Stat. 258;
Pub. L. 94-298. May 29. 1978. 90 Stat 587: Pub.
L 95-300. June 26, 1978. 92 Stat. 342; Pub. L.
97-350, ! 1, Oct. 18.1982, 96 Stat. 1661.)
REFERENCES IN TEXT
Pub. L. 91-190. referred to in text »• Pub. U 91-190-
Jan. 1. 1970. 83 Stat. 882, as amended, known « the
National Environmental Policy Act of ^»»«9-"^ch to
classified generally to chapter 55 (14321 et seq.) of
this title. For complete classification of thte*" to ™
Code, see Short Title note set out under section 4321
of this title and Tables.
AMENDMENTS
1982-C1. (0. Pub. U 97-350 added el. (e).
1978-Pub U 95-300 added els. (a) and (b). Former
els. (.Tto (d>. which authorized appropriation,i of
12.000,000 for the fiscal year ending June 30. _J» w.
1500000 for the transition period of July 1. I"™1",
Sept' 30 1978. tt.000.000 for the fiscal year ending
Sent 30 1977 and »3.000.000 for the fiscal year ending
Sept. 30.1978, respectively, were struck ouU
1976-Pub. X. 94-MB made changes In s»-
designating existing provisions as els. (a) i
LT>
CO
-- substituted "W.000,000 for the
fiscal year ending June 30, 1976 and not to exceed
$500,000 for the transition period (July 1.1978 to Sep-
tember 30 1918)" for "tl.500.000 for the fiscal year
endtag June 30.1974. and »2.000.000 for the fiscal year
ending June 30,1975".
-------
APPENDIX C
-------
ATTENDEES OF THE EIGHTH ANNUAL ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW CONFERENCE
OCTOBER 18-19, 1984
David A. Adams
Department of Forestry
North Carolina State University
Box 8002
Raleigh, North Carolina 27695-8002
Gene P. Allen
Information Resources Press
1700 North Moore Street, Suite 700
Arlington, Virginia 22209
Jeffrey T. Armbruster
U.S. Geological Survey IN-08
6481 Peachtree Industrial Blvd, Suite B
Doraville, Georgia 30360
Steven Bach
WAPORA, Inc.
5980 Unity Drive, Suite F
Norcross, Georgia 30071
Charles Barnes
Environmental Office
McAlester Army Ammunition Plant
McAlester, Oklahoma
Verona Barnes
Municipal Grants Administration Unit
Georgia Environmental Protection Division
270 Washington Street, S.W.
Atlanta, Georgia 30334
Dennis W. Barnett
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
510 Title Bldg.
30 Pryor Street, S.W.
Atlanta, Georgia 30303
Dinah Bear
General Counsel
Council on Environmental Quality
722 Jackson Place, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20006
Jan Becker
Jan Becker Inc.
2743 King Arthur Court
Buford, Georgia 30518
COMM: 919/737-2891
FTS: N/A
703/558-8270
N/A
404/221-4858
242-4858
404/447-4433
N/A
918/421-2551
722-2551
404/656-4769
N/A
404/221-4580
242-4580
202/395-5754
395-5754
404/945-6343
N/A
C-1
-------
M.T. Bennett
Commander (dpi)
Seventh Coast Guard District
51 S.W. First Avenue 305/350-5502
Miami, Florida 33130 350-5502
Theodore Bisterfield
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency - Region IV
345 Courtland Street 404/881-3776
Atlanta, Georgia 30365 257-3776
Bobby W. Blackmon
Area Engineer
Federal Highway Administration
Georgia Division Office
1720 Peachtree Road, N.W.-Suite 300 404/881-3091
Atlanta, Georgia 30367 257-3091
Hale Booth
Southeast Tennessee Development District
2100 Broad Street 615/266-5781
Chattanooga, Tennessee 37408 N/A
Gregory Bourne
CTA Environmental, Inc.
P.O. Box 29553 404/320-1375
Atlanta, Georgia 30359 N/A
Thomas M. Bryan
Area Engineer
Federal Highway Administration
Georgia Division Office
1720 Peachtree Road, N.W.-Suite 300 404/881-3092
Atlanta, Georgia 30367 257-3092
Gayle Burbidge
Department of Housing and Urban Development
Regional Housing
75 Spring Street 404/221-4064
Atlanta, Georgia 30303 242-4064
Roy Burke, III
Georgia EPD
148 International Blvd.
Suite 350 404/656-4988
Atlanta, Georgia N/A
Mario Busacca
Kennedy Space Center
DF-EMS/NASA 305/867-4049
Kennedy Space Center, Florida 32899 823-4049
C-2
-------
Derb Carter
National Wildlife Federation
1033 Wade Avenue
Suite 207
Raleigh, North Carolina 27605
Bill G. Carwile
Alabama Highway Department
Environmental Section
1409 Coliseum Blvd.
Montgomery, Alabama 36130
Milady Cardamone
Center for Environmental Science & Management
Systems Science Institute
University of Louisville
Louisville, Kentucky 40292
Beverly N. Carrera
USDA, Forest Service
Washington, D.C.
Joe Cathey
U.S. .Army Corps of Engineers
P.O. Box 1070
Nashville, Tennessee 37202
Dennis Chase
U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service
75 Spring Street, S.W.
Atlanta, Georgia 30303
James F. Condron
Assistant Area Engineer
Federal Highway Administration
Georgia Division Office
1720 Peachtree Road, N.W. - Suite 300
Atlanta, Georgia 30367
Josephine S. Cooper
Assistant Administrator
for External Affairs
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
401 M. Street, S.W.
Washington, D.C. 20460
Robert Cooper
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency - Region IV
345 Courtland Street
Atlanta, Georgia 30365
919/832-2971
N/A
205/261-6142
N/A
502/588-6482
N/A
202/447-4708
615/251-5027
852-5027
404/221-6343
242-6343
404/881-3093
257-3093
202/382-5053
382-5053
404/881-3776
257-3776
C-3
-------
Joe E. Couch
USDA/ Soil Conservation Service
675 Estes Kefowver FB-USCH
801 Broadway
Nashville, Tennessee 37203
Buddy E. Davis
Duke Power Company
P.O. Box 33189
Charlotte, North Carolina 28242
James E. Dean
Conservation Agronomist
USDA/Soil Conservation Service
355 E. Hancock Avenue
Athens, Georgia 30601
Susan Deihl
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
345 Courtland Street
Atlanta, Georgia 30365
Clara DeLay
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency - Region IV
345 Courtland Street
Atlanta, Georgia 30365
David H. Densmore
District Engineer
Federal Highway Administration
Georgia Division
1720 Peachtree Road, N.W. - Suite 300
Atlanta, Georgia 30367
Bill Dickerson
Office of Federal Activities
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
401 M. Street, S.W.
Washington, D.C. 20460
David G. Dodd
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
668 Clifford Davis Federal Office Bldg.
Rm. B-314
Memphis, Tennessee 38103
George Dodson
Air Force Regional Civil Engineer
Eastern Region
Title Bldg.- Rm. 526
30 Pryor Street, S.E.
Atlanta, Georgia 30303
615/251-5873
852-5873
704/373-8105
N/A
404/546-2217
250-2217
404/881-3776
257-3776
404/881-7901
257-7901
404/881-4750
257-4750
202/382-5049
382-5049
901/521-3857
222-3857
404/221-6821
242-6821
c-4
-------
Benjamin C. Dysart
National Wildlife Federation
Box 122
Clemson, South Carolina 29633
Robert F. Edmonds
Duke Power Company
P.O. Box 33189
Charlotte, North Carolina 28242
Stella Elakovich
University of Southern Mississippi
Box 5043 - Southern Station
Hattiesburg, Mississippi 39406
John Elliott
Council on Environmental Quality
722 Jackson Place, N.W.
Washington, B.C. 20006
Hal Emmett
Center for Environmental Health
Center for Disease Control
Atlanta, Georgia 30333
James K. Erickson
District Engineer
Federal Highway Administration
Georgia Division Office
1720 Peachtree Road, N.W. - Suite 300
Atlanta, Georgia 30367
Beverly Ethridge
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency - Region IV
345 Courtland Street
Atlanta, Georgia 30365
Lesley Swing
Rural Electrification Administration
Southeast Area Electric
Room 0262, South Bldg.
Washington, D.C. 20250
Robert Fenemore
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency - Region VII
324 E. 11 Street
Kansas City, Missouri 64106
Edward L. Findley, Jr. C.E.P.
Findley & Company
976 Viscount Court
Avondale, Georgia 30002
803/656-3276
N/A
704/373-8105
N/A
601/266-4705
N/A
202/395-5754
395-5754
404/452-4161
236-4161
404/881-3041
257-3041
404/881-7901
257-7901
202/382-8436
382-8436
816/374-5593
758-5593
404/292-3757
N/A
C-5
-------
James H. Finger
Environmental Services Division
College Station Road
Athens, Georgia 30613
Leonard Fleckenstein
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
PM-223
401 M Street, S.W.
Washington, B.C. 20460
Stephen Forsythe
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
409 Merchants Bank
Vicksburg, Mississippi 39180
Judith A. Gale
Department of Foresty
North Carolina State University
Box 8002
Raleigh, North Carolina 27695-8002
Dick A. Gallo
Soil Conservation Service
310 New Bern Avenue
Room 535 - Federal Building
Raleigh, North Carolina 27601
John J. Garrett
Soil Conservation Service
310 New Bern Avenue
Room 535 - Federal Building
Raleigh, North Carolina 27601
Robert F. Gaugush
USAE Waterways Experiment Station
P.O. Box 631
Vicksburg, Mississippi 39180
Agnes Gear
General Services Administration
OPBRP, RED (4PEP)
75 Spring Street, S.W. #418A
Atlanta, Georgia 30303
Richard L. Gensel
Projects Control Manager
Cobb County Board of Comm.
Finance Division
P.O. Box 649
Marietta, Georgia 30061
404/546-3331
250-3331
202/382-2716
382-2716
601/638-1891
542-5995
919/737-3181
N/A
919/755-4527
672-4527
919/755-4527
672-4527
601/634-3626
542-3626
404/221-3080
242-3080
404/429-3404
N/A
C-6
-------
Michael Gibbs
Oglethorpe Power
2100 East Exchange Place
P.O. Box 1349
Atlanta, Georgia 30025-1349
Andreas Goetzfried
Clark Engineers - Scientists
P.O. Box 21167
Kennedy Space Center, Florida 32815
Edward J. Goodno
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
Huntington District
502 8th Street
Huntington, West Virginia 25701-2070
Kenneth G. Hall
WESEP-W
USCE Waterway Experiment Station
P.O. Box 631
Vicksburg, Mississippi 39180-0631
Tim Hamilton
East AL. Reg. PI. and Dev. Commission
P.O.. Box 2186
Anniston, Alabama 36202
Peter W. Havens
U.S. Navy, OICC-TRIDENT
293 Point Peter Road
Attn: Code 09XE3
Kings Bay, Georgia 31558
Suzanne R. Hawes
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
1781 Lafrenierc
P.O. Box 60267
New Orleans, Louisiana 70160
E.T. Heinen, Chief
Environmental Assessment Branch
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency - Region IV
345 Courtland Street
Atlanta, Georgia 30365
Saul Herner
Herner and Company
1700 North Moore Street - Suite 700
Arlington, Virginia 22209
404/496-7200
N/A
305/867-2000
N/A
304/529-5712
924-5712
601/634-3627
542-3627
205/237-6741
N/A
912/673-2407
970-2407
504/838-2518
838-2518
404/881-3776
257-3776
703/558-8200
N/A
C-7
-------
William M. Herron
Assistant Area Engineer
Federal Highway Administration
Georgia Division Office
1720 Peachtree Road, N.W. - Suite 300
Atlanta, Georgia 30367
Chris Hoberg
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency - Region IV
345 Courtland Street
Atlanta, Georgia 30365
Bill Holman
Conservation Council of North Carolina
922 Wimbleton Drive
Raleigh, North Carolina 27609
Kenneth W. Holt
Special Studies Branch (C-9)
Center for Environmental Health
Centers for Disease Control
U.S. PHS
Atlanta, Georgia 30333
C.J. Hong
SSB, CDD, CEH
Centers for Disease Control
U.S. PHS
Atlanta, Georgia 30333
Dwight A. Home
Area Engineer
Federal Highway Administration
Georgia Division Office
1720 Peachtree Road, N.W. - Suite 300
Atlanta, Georgia 30367
Alice G. Howard
U.S. Army Infantry Center
AT2B-EH-EM
Fort Benning, Georgia 31905
Robert Howard
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency - Region IV
345 Courtland Street
Atlanta, Georgia 30365
Richard L. Huber, Jr.
Georgia Department of Community Affairs
40 Marietta Street, N.W. - 8th Floor
Atlanta, Georgia 30303
404/881-3092
257-3092
404/881-7901
257-7901
919/787-8921
N/A
404/452-4161
236-4161
404/452-4161
236-4161
404/881-3093
257-3093
404/545-4957
545-4957
404/881-3776
257-3776
404/656-2900
N/A
C-8
-------
Joseph M. Huerta
Assistant Area Engineer
Federal Highway Administration
Georgia Division Office
1720 Peachtree Road, N.W. - Suite 300
Atlanta, Georgia 30367
Dr. Terry Huffman
Huffman Technologies
69 Aztec Street
San Francisco, California 94110
Eric Hughes
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency - Region IV
345 Courtland Street
Atlanta, Georgia 30365
J. Robert Hume, III
Con/Ops Division
Regulatory Functions Branch
Permits Section
U.S. Army,Corps of Engineers
803 Front Street
Norfolk, Virginia 23510-1096
Ivar Iverson
Regional Environmental Officer
HUD Regional Officer
75 Spring Street, S.W.
Atlanta, Georgia 30341
Charles R. Jeter
Regional Administrator
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency - Region IV
345 Courtland Street
Atlanta, Georgia 30365
Ottie G. Johnson
Soil Conservation Service
State Office
401 S.E. 1st Avenue - Rm. 248
Gainesville, Florida 32601
Dr. James F. Kanipe, P.E.
Clark Engineers - Scientists
P.O. Box 21167
Kennedy Space Center, Florida 32815
Robert L. Kay, Jr.
Center for Environmental Health
Centers for Disease Control
U.S. PHS
Atlanta, Georgia 30333
404/881-4777
257-4777
415/821-4159
N/A
404/881-7901
257-7901
804/441-3657
827-3657
404/221-5167
242-3167
404/881-4727
257-4727
904/377-0952
946-7202
305/867-2000
N/A
404/452-4161
236-4161
C-9
-------
Wiley Kitchens
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
National Coastal Ecosystems Team
1557 Ridgecrest 504/255-6511
Slidell, Louisiana 685-6511
Sally C. Knowles
S.C. Department of Health and Environmental Control
2600 Bull Street 803/758-5496
Columbia, South Carolina 29201 N/A
Walter O. Kolb
The Capitol
Executive Office of The Governor
Office of Planning and Budgeting 904/488-5551
Tallahassee, Florida 32301-8047 N/A
Randall A. Kramer
Department of Agricultural Economics
Virginia Tech 703/961-7730
Blacksburg, Virginia 24061 N/A
Bill Kruczynski
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency - Region IV
345 Courtland Street 404/881-7901
Atlanta, Georgia 30365 257-7901
Charles H. Langdon
Tennessee Valley Authority
229 Summer Place Building
Knoxville, Tennessee 37902 615/632-6699
856-6699
James H. Lee
U.S. Department of the Interior
Office of Environmental Project Review
Richard B. Russell Federal Building
75 Spring Street, S.W. 404/221-4524
Atlanta, Georgia 30303 242-4524
Arthur G. Linton
Federal Facilities Coordinator
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency - Region IV
345 Courtland Street 404/881-3776
Atlanta, Georgia 30365 257-3776
Harold E. Little
Atlanta Airports District Office/FAA
3420 Norman Berry Drive, Suite 310 404/763-7639
Hapeville, Georgia 30354 246-7639
c-10
-------
Jim Little
c/o Dames & Moore
455 E. Paces Ferry Road
Atlanta, GA 30363
Captain Glen J. Lozier
Office of the Chief of Engineering
Asst. Director of Civil Work
Environmental Program
Washington, D.C.
Allen Lucas
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency - Region IV
345 Courtland Street
Atlanta, Georgia 30365
F. Dell Luckow
Director of Planning & Project Development
Federal Highway Administration
1720 Peachtree Road N.W.
Suite 200
Atlanta, GA 30367
Hal Mackey
DuPont Company
Sava'nnah River Laboratory
Building 773-42A
Aiken, S.C. 29808
Jerome L. Mahlock
USAE Waterways Experiment Station
ATTN: WESEP-W
P.O. Box 631
Vicksburg, Mississippi 39180-0631
Dr. Barry F. Malac
Technical Director
Union Camp Woodlands
Box 1391
Savannah, GA 31402
David S. Maney
Associate Director for the Environment
U.S. Department of Commerce
Economic Development Administration
HCHB - Room 7319
14th & Const. Ave., N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20230
404/262-2915
N/A
202/272-0103
272-0103
404/881-7901
257-7901
404/881-4099
257-4099
803/725-5204
239-5204
601/634-3635
542-3635
912/238-7696
N/A
202/377-4208
377-4208
C-11
-------
Gary A. Margheim
Soil Conservation Service, USDA
16037 Fairway Drive
Dumfries, Virginia 22026
Howard Marshall
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency - Region IV
345 Courtland Street
Atlanta, Georgia 30365
Wayne R. Miles
Federal Aviation Administration
3973 Knight Arnold Road
Suite 105
Memphis, Tennessee 38118
Anne M. Miller
E.I. Dupont
Savannah River Plant
Aiken, S.C. 29808
Gerald Miller
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency - Region IV
345 Courtland Street
Atlanta, Georgia 30365
Natalie Mills
Associate Director for the Environment
U.S. Department of Commerce - EDA
Economic Development Administration
HCHB - Room 7319
14th & Const. Ave., N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20230
Sheppard N. Moore, Chief
NEPA Review Staff
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency - Region IV
345 Courtland Street
Atlanta, Georgia 30365
Steve Moore
S.C. Coastal Council
19 Hagood Avenue, Suite 802
Charleston, SC 29403
Jim Morrison
Georgia Wildlife Federation
4019 Woburn Drive
Tucker, GA 30084
202/447-4912
447-4912
404/881-7901
257-7901
901/521-3495
222-3495
803/725-5231
725-5231
404/881-7901
257-7901
202/377-4208
377-4208
404/881-7901
257-7901
803/792-5808
N/A
404/934-1955
N/A
C-12
-------
Heinz Mueller
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency - Region IV
345 Courtland Street
Atlanta, Georgia 30365
Ron Nawrocki
U.S. Department of Transportation
Urban Mass Transportation Administration
1720 Peachtree Road, NW
Atlanta, GA 30309
Dr. John C. Nemeth
Georgia Tech
GTRI/EDL/EHSD
Atlanta, GA 30332
Heather L. Nixon
Florida Department of Environmental Regulation
2600 Blair Stone Road
Tallahassee, Florida 32301
Wayne C. Ondler
Florida Power & Light Company
P.O. Box 14000
Juno Beach, Florida 33410
John B. Outland
Florida Department of Environmental Regulation
2600 Blair Stone Road
Tallahassee, Florida 32301
Robert W. Peery Jr.
Farmers Home Administration
Stevens Federal Building
355 East Hancock Avenue
Athens, Georgia 30610
Lee Pelej
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency - Region IV
345 Courtland Street
Atlanta, Georgia 30365
George D. Pence
Minority Professional Staff
Committee on Merchant Marine and Fisheries
U.S. House of Representatives
H2-540 House Annex #2
Washington, D.C. 20515
404/881-7901
257-7901
404/881-7850
257-7850
404/894-3806
N/A
904/488-8615
N/A
305/863-3639
N/A
904/488-8615
N/A
404/546-2171
250-2171
404/881-7901
257-7901
202/226-3520
N/A
C-13
-------
Steven Price
National Park Service
75 Spring Street
Room 1022
Atlanta, Georgia 30303
Charles V. Prouty
Atlanta Airports District Office/FAA
3420 Norman Berry Drive, Suite 310
Hapeville, Georgia 30354
Morgan R. Rees
Assistant for Regulatory Affairs
Department of the Army
Office of the Assistant Secretary of the Army
Civil Works Pentagan
Washington, D.C. ' 20310-0103
Susan Invester Rees, Ph.D.
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
P.O. Box 2288
Mobile, Alabama 36628-0001
Walter L. Reynolds
Area Engineer
Federal Highway Administration
Georgia Division Office
1720 Peachtree Road, N.W. - Suite 300
Atlanta, Georgia 30367
Reginald Rogers
U.S. Environmental Protection
345 Courtland Street
Atlanta, Georgia 30365
Betty Rosser
NOAA - Washington, D.C.
3417 Oberon Street
Kensington, Maryland 20875
William Rowe
U.S. Environmental Protection
345 Courtland Street
Atlanta, Georgia 30365
Paul D. Rubenstein
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
ATTN: PD-EC
P.O. Box 889
Savannah, Georgia 31402-0889
Agency - Region IV
Agency - Region IV
404/221-5465
242-5465
404/763-7639
246-7639
202/695-1370
695-1370
205/690-2724
537-2724
404/881-3039
257-3039
404/881-7901
257-7901
202/653-7695
653-7695
404/881-3776
257-3776
912/944-5325
248-5325
c-14
-------
John Rushing
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
510 Title Building
30 Pryor Street, S.W.
Atlanta, Georgia 30303
Alfred T. Russell
Area Engineer
Federal Highway Administration
Georgia Division Office
1720 Peachtree Road, N.W. - Suite 300
Atlanta, Georgia 30367
John Ryan
NASA
Kennedy Space Center
DF-EMS
Kennedy Space Center, Florida 32899
Roger N. Schecter
N.C. Department of Natural Resources &
Community Development
Pollution Prevention Pays Program
P.O.- Box 27687
Raleigh, North Carolina 27611
Anna W. Schoonover
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Vicksburg District
Regulatory Branch
P.O. Box 60
Vicksburg, Mississippi 39180
Susan Schub
Office of Regional Counsel
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency - Region IV
345 Courtland Street
Atlanta, Georgia 30365
Keith Scruggs
Oglethorpe Power
2100 East Exchange Place
P.O. Box 1349
Atlanta, Georgia 30085-1349
Jan Lott Shaw
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Office of Federal Activities
401 M. Street, S.W.
Washington, D.C. 20460
404/221-4580
242-4580
404/881-3037
257-3037
305/867-4049
823-4049
919/733-5083
N/A
601/634-5292
542-5292
404/881-3506
257-3506
404/496-7200
N/A
202/382-5074
382-5074
C-15
-------
John L. Shi11
Environmental Section
Alabama Highway Department
1409 Coliseum Blvd. 205/261-6142
Montgomery> Alabama 36130 261-6132
Carol Shipley
Georgia Power Company
P.O. Box 4545 404/526-2226
Atlanta, Georgia 30302 N/A
Tom Sills
2100 Broad Street 615/266-8752
Chattanooga, Tennessee 37408 N/A
Tom Simpson
Dames & Moore
455 E. Paces Ferry Road 404/262-2915
Atlanta, Georgia N/A
Jody Sloan
U.S. Department of Transportation
Urban Mass Transportation Administration
1720 Peachtree Road, Suite 400 404/881-7875
Atlanta, Georgia 30309 257-7875
Linda M. Smolarek
E.I. DuPont
Savannah River Plant 803/725-1554
Aiken, South Carolina 29808 725-1554
James V. Spann
Richard B. Russell Federal Building, Room 600-C
U.S. Department of Housing & Urban Development
75 Spring Street, S.W. 404/221-3167
Atlanta, Georgia 30303 242-3167
Paul E. Spieks
Area Engineer
Federal Highway Administration
Georgia Division Office
1720 Peachtree Road, N.W., Suite 300 404/881-4759
Atlanta, Georgia 30367 257-4759
Robert Stevens
WAPORA, Inc.
5980 Unity Drive, Suite F 404/447-4433
Norcross, Georgia 30071 N/A
c-16
-------
Howard Stith
Information Marketing International
18 Dior Drive
Marietta, Georgia 30062
William S. Stoken Jr.
U.S. Department of Housing & Urban Development
75 Spring Street S.W.
Atlanta, Georgia 30303
James S. Stokes, Esq.
Alston and Bird
2500 C & S National Bank Building
35 Broad Street
Atlanta, Georgia 30335
Cheryl L. Stovall
Federal Emergency Management Agency
1371 Peachtree Street, N.E. #736
Atlanta, Georgia 30309
Richard Stuart
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
P.O. Box 80
Vicksburg, Mississippi 39180
Charles Sweat
Region IV Laboratory
College Station Road
Athen, Georgia 30613
W. Ray Swicegood
USDA-SCS
Federal Building, Box 13
355 East Hancock Avenue
Athen, Georgia 30601
Al Tate
Georgia Department of Transportation
65 Aviation Circle S.W.
Atlanta, Georgia 30336
Lee Tate
Center of Environmental Health
Centers for Disease Control
U.S. PHS
Atlanta, Georgia 30333
Chris Peralta Thompson
c/o DuPont - Savannah River Plant
S.C. Wildlife Federation
Aiken, South Carolina 29808
703/558-8270
N/A
404/221-3167
242-3167
404/586-1500
N/A
404/881-7068
257-7068
601/634-5836
542-5836
404/546-3331
250-3331
404/546-2217
250-2217
404/696-4634
N/A
404/452-4161
236-4161
803/725-8433
725-8433
c-17
-------
Russ Todd
Region IV Laboratory
College Station Road 404/546-3331
Athens, Georgia 30613 250-2294
Mr. Thomas T. Traceski
Assistant Chief of Engineers
Army Environmental Office
HQDA(DAEN-ZCE) 202/694-3434
Washington, D.C. 20310-2600 694-3434
Cindy Van Dyne
J.R.B. Associates
8400 West Park Drive 202/821-4866
McLean, Virginia 22102 N/A
James R. Vinson
Central Midlands Regional Planning Council
800 Dutch Square Blvd., Suite 155 803/798-1243
Columbia, South Carolina 29210 N/A
Dr. David K. Voigts
Florida Power Corporation
Post Office Box 14042, G20 813/866-5166
St. Petersburg, Florida 33733 N/A
Harry T. Walls
Environmental Branch
U.S. Department of Housing & Urban Development
75 Spring Street, S.W. 404/221-5197
Atlanta, Georgia 30303 242-5197
Debra L. Walker
NOAA/NOS
Office of Ocean & Coastal Resource Management 202/254-8000
Washington, D.C. 20235 254-8000
Gailya Walter
Center for Environmental Health
Centers for Disease Control
U.S. PHS 404/452-4161
Atlanta, Georgia 30333 236-4161
c-18
-------
Larry D. Watson
U.S. Corps of Engineers
Regulatory Functions Branch
B-314 Clifford Davis FOB
Memphis, Tennessee 38103
Valerie A. Wickstrom
Kentucky Natural Resources & Environmental
Protection Cabinet
5th Floor Capital Plaza Tower
Frankfort, Kentucky 40601
Joseph V. Wilkins
Environmental Office Building 1403
Department of the Army
Ft. Rucker, Alabama 36361-5000
Bob Williams
Special Studies Branch
Chronic Disease Division
Center for Environmental Health
Centers for Disease Control
U.S. PHS
Atlanta, Georgia 30333
Llo^d Wise
U.S.* Environmental Protection Agency
345 Courtland Street, N.E.
Atlanta, Georgia 30365
J.M. "Mike" Woodson
USDA/Soil Conservation Service
P.O. Box 6567
Ft. Worth, Texas 76115
Bryan C. Wood-Thomas
United States Coast Guard (6-wp-3)
2100 Second Street, S.W.
Washington, D.C. 20593
Robert Woodyard
U.S./ Army Engineer District
P.O. Box 59
Louisville, Kentucky 40201
Jean Wooten
University of Southern Mississippi
Department of Biological Sciences
Box 5018
Hattiesburg, Mississippi 39401
901/521-3471
222-3471
502/564-3350
N/A
205/255-5926
539-5926
404/452-416]
236-4161
404/881-498C
257-498C
817/334-528'
334-528:
202/426-330(
426-330(
502/582-5691
352-5691
601/266-437'
N/A
c-19
-------
John S. Wright
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
502 8th Street 304/529-5712
Huntington, West Virginia 25701-2070 924-5712
Jane Yarn
Georgia EPD Advisory Committee
881 West Conway Road, N.W. 404/237-2344
Atlanta, Georgia 30327 N/A
Charles P. Younce
Jack Elam (Cone Mills Corporation)
1201 Maple Street 919/379-6449
Greensboro, North Carolina 27405 N/A
Howard Zeller
Assistant Regional Administrator
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency - Region IV
345 Courtland Street 404/881-3476
Atlanta, Georgia 30365 257-3476
c-20
------- |