-------
r • ^ he Congress, recognizing the profound
I impact of man's activity on the
JL interrelations of all components of the
natural environment, particularly the profound
influences of population growth, high-density
urbanization, industrial expansion, resource ex-
ploitation and new and expanding technological
advances, and recognizing further the critical
importance of restoring and maintaining
environmental quality to the overall welfare and
development of man, declares that it is the
continuing policy of the Federal Government,
in cooperation with State and local governments,
and other concerned public and private
organizations, to use all practicable means and
measures, including financial and technical
assistance, in a manner calculated to foster and
promote the general welfare, to create and
maintain conditions under which man and nature
can exist in productive harmony, and fulfill the
social, economic and other requirements of
present and future generations of Americans."
THE NATIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY ACT
-------
How It Started
On January 1, 1970, the President signed
into law the National Environmental
Policy Act (NEPA), which declared a
national policy to encourage productive and
enjoyable harmony between man and his
environment.
In signing the bill, the President remarked
that it was particularly fitting as his first official
act of the new decade not only because it
gave disparate Federal environmental efforts
organization and direction, but because,
"the 1970's absolutely must be the years when
America pays its debt to the past by
reclaiming the purity of its air, its waters and
our living environment. It is literally now
or never."
NEPA established in the Executive Office of
the President a Council on Environmental
Quality (CEQ), charged with responsibility to
study the condition of the Nation's environment,
to develop new environmental programs and
policies, to coordinate the wide array of
Federal environmental efforts, to see that all
Federal activities take environmental con-
siderations into account and to assist the
President in assessing environmental problems
and in determining ways to solve them.
To ensure that environmental amenities and
values are given systematic consideration
equal to economic and technical considerations
in the Federal decision-making process,
NEPA requires each Federal agency to prepare
a statement of environmental impact in advance
of each major action, recommendation or report
on legislation that may significantly affect the
quality of the human environment. Such actions
may include new highway construction, harbor
dredging or filling, nuclear power plant con-
struction, large-scale aerial pesticide spraying,
river channeling, new jet runways, munitions
disposal, bridge construction and more.
What is an Environmental Impact Statement?
A environmental impact statement is the
heart of a Federal administrative
process designed to ensure achievement
of national environmental goals. Each statement
must assess in detail the potential environmental
1
-------
impact of a proposed action, and all Federal
agencies are required to prepare statements for
matters under their jurisdiction.
As early in the decision-making process as
possible, and in all cases prior to agency
decision, an agency prepares a draft statement
for review by appropriate Federal, State and
local environmental agencies as well as the
public. After comment from the agencies and
interested parties, the statement is prepared
in final form, incorporating all comments and
objections received on the draft and indicating
how significant issues raised during the
commenting process have been resolved. Both
draft and final statement arc filed with CEQ and
made available to the public.
Impact statements are popularly called 102
statements, an abbreviated term for NEPA's
Section 102(2) (C) which requires them.
Purpose of the Statement
"""he statement's primary purpose is to
disclose the environmental conse-
quences of a proposed action, thus
alerting the agency decision-maker, the public
and ultimately Congress and the President to
the environmental risks involved. An important
and intended consequence of this is to build
into a Federal agency's decision-making
process a continuing consciousness of environ-
mental considerations. This, in turn, ensures
to the fullest extent possible that the agency
directs its policies, plans and programs so as
to meet national environmental goals.
What Actions Must Statements Cover?
—r^he actions for which agencies must
1 prepare impact statements must be
* "major'' and "environmentally
significant," such as:
1. Agency recommendations on their own
proposals for legislation.
2. Agency reports on legislation initiated
elsewhere but concerning subject matter
for which the agency has primary
responsibility.
3. Projects and continuing activities which
may be
a. undertaken directly by an agency;
-------
b. supported in whole or in part through
Federal contracts, grants, subsidies,
loans or other forms of funding
assistance; or
c. part of a Federal lease, permit,
license, certificate or other entitle-
ment for use.
4. Decisions of policy, regulation and
procedure-making.
All of the following actions are considered
major and/or environmentally significant.
1. Actions whose impact is significant and
highly controversial on environmental
grounds.
2. Actions which are precedents for much
larger actions which may have consider-
able environmental impact.
3. Actions which are decisions in principle
about major future courses of action.
4. Actions which are major because of the
involvement of several Federal agencies,
even though a particular agency's indi-
vidual action is not major.
5. Actions whose impact includes envi-
ronmentally beneficial as well as envi-
ronmentally detrimental effects.
Contents of the Statement
~T"1 ach environmental impact statement
must include:
1. A detailed description of the proposed
action including information and technical data
adequate to permit a careful assessment of
environmental impact.
2. Discussion of the probable impact on the
environment, including any impact on
ecological systems and any direct or indirect
consequences that may result from the action.
3. Any adverse environmental effects that
cannot be avoided.
4. Alternatives to the proposed action that
might avoid some or all of the adverse
environmental effects, including analysis of
costs and environmental impacts of these
alternatives.
5. An assessment of the cumulative,
long-term effects of the proposed action includ-
ing its relationship to short-term use of
the environment versus the environment's
long-term productivity.
-------
6. Any irreversible or irretrievable commit-
ment of resources that might result from the
action or which would curtail beneficial use of
the environment.
A final impact statement must include
a discussion of problems and objections
raised by other Federal, State and local
agencies, private organizations and individuals
during the draft statement's review process.
What Does a Statement Look Like?
A environmental impact statement
may consist of a few pages or a
few hundred pages depending on the
complexity of the proposed action under
review. Each statement ordinarily is introduced
by a summary sheet suggesting the nature
of its contents; e.g.:
Environmental Impact Statement
Draft ___ Final
Name of responsible or principal agency
and appropriate operating division.
1. Administrative action
Legislative action
2. Brief description of action, indicating
States and counties particularly affected.
3. Summary of environmental impact and
adverse environmental affects.
4. List of alternatives considered.
5. For draft statement, a list of all
Federal, State and local agencies from which
comments have been requested.
For final statement, a list of all
Federal, State and local agencies and other
sources from which written comments have
been received.
6. Dates draft and final statements are filed
with CEQ and made available to the public.
When is a Statement Prepared?
A raft statement must be prepared and
circulated for comment at least 90 days
before the proposed action. A final
statement must be made public at least
30 days before the proposed action. Any
agency unable to meet these requirements must
consult with CEQ.
Each agency must identify at what stage or
stages in a series of actions relating to a
particular matter, that an environmental impact
-------
statement will be prepared. Often it may
be necessary to write a statement both in the
development of a national program and in the
review of proposed projects within a national
program. A duplicate clearance process is
not always mandatory, but when actions being
considered differ significantly from those
that have been reviewed already, a new
statement should be written.
It is the responsibility of each agency to
obtain views of other agencies and interested
parties at the earliest feasible time in the devel-
opment of program and project proposals.
To the maximum extent practicable, impact
statements must be prepared for continuing
major Federal actions significantly affecting the
environment even though they arise from
projects or programs initiated prior to enact-
ment of NEPA. Where it is not practicable,
it is still important that further incremental
actions be shaped to minimize adverse
environmental consequences and to account
for environmental consequences not fully
evaluated at the outset of a project or program.
The greatest use should be made of existing
interagency and intergovernmental review
procedures.
How Does an Agency Prepare a Statement?
NEPA directs each agency to establish
procedures for dealing with environ-
mental impact statements, those pre-
pared inhouse and those reviewed for comment.
Agency procedures must:
1. Identify those agency actions requiring
environmental statements.
2. Designate the appropriate time prior to
decision to seek comments of other agencies.
3. Describe the mechanisms through which
statements are to be made available to
the public.
4. Specify general methods for obtaining
information required in the preparation
of a statement.
5. Designate officials responsible for
statements.
6. Establish patterns for consulting with
and taking into account the comments of other
agencies, particularly EPA.
7. Provide for timely public announcement
-------
of plans and programs with environmental
impact.
NEPA goes a step beyond requiring new
actions to be environmentally sound by
directing all Federal agencies to review their
present statutory authority, administrative
regulations and current policies and procedures
for the purpose of determining whether there
are any deficiencies or inconsistencies therein
which prohibit full compliance with the Act.
Still further, agencies must propose "such
measures as may be necessary to bring their
authority and policies into conformity with the
intent, purposes and procedures set forth
in this Act."
In other words, agencies must not only begin
to meet NEPA requirements for decisions
yet unmade, but must seek to realign their
standard operating procedures with national
environmental goals.
Who Reviews Each Statement?
NEPA requires each Federal agency to
"consult with and obtain the comments
of any other agency (including State
and local as well as Federal) which has
jurisdiction by law or special expertise with
respect to any environmental impact involved"
in an impact statement.
In its guidelines for preparing statements,
CEQ lists the agencies which must be con-
sulted on this basis in the following areas:
• air quality and air pollution control
• weather modification
• environmental aspects of electric energy gener-
ation and transmission
• natural gas energy development, generation
and transmission
• toxic materials
• pesticides
• herbicides
• transportation and handling of hazardous
materials
• coastal areas: wetlands, estuaries, waterfowl
refuges and beaches
• historic and archeological sites
• flood plains and watersheds
• mineral land reclamation
-------
• parks, forests and outdoor recreational areas
• soil and plant life, sedimentation, erosion and
hydrologic conditions
• noise control and abatement
• chemical contamination of food products
• food additives and food sanitation
• microbiological contamination
• radiation and radiological health
• sanitation and waste systems
• shellfish sanitation
• transportation and air quality
• transportation and water quality
• congestion in urban areas, housing and
building displacement
• environmental effects with special impact on
low-income neighborhoods
• rodent control
• urban planning
• water quality and water pollution control
• marine pollution
• river and canal regulation and stream
channelization
• wildlife
The guidelines also require draft statements
to be made available for public comment. Many
individual agency procedures allow for direct
solicitation of such comments from interested
parties and private organizations.
If an agency is in doubt as to the proper
recipients of its request for comments, CEQ
will advise on an appropriate routing.
The Role of CEQ
CEQ is the central Federal force behind
the impact statement process. CEQ as-
sists other agencies whenever and wher-
ever necessary in determining the applicability of
NEPA to agency actions and in promulgating
agency procedures to meet NEPA requirements.
CEQ also assists in resolving any conflicts that
may arise.
The Council's role is a coordinating one; it
is not a commenting agency in the sense that
its comments are attached to impact state-
ments. Thus no inference of either approval or
disapproval is to be drawn from CEQ's failure
to comment on either draft or final statements.
-------
As long as a statement is made available to
CEQ, that agency will be able to fulfill its role
of internal adviser to the Executive Branch
and to the President as contemplated
by NEPA.
CEQ's guidelines for preparing 102 state-
ments on proposed Federal actions affecting the
environment were issued April 23, 1971 in the
Federal Register.
The Role of EPA
EPA reviews environmental impact state-
ments touching any aspect of its re-
sponsibilities centering around air and
water pollution, drinking water supplies, solid
waste, pesticides, radiation and noise. In
addition to reviewing statements filed by
Federal agencies, EPA frequently reviews
statements filed by States and other jurisdic-
tions as a technical service.
Periodically, EPA lists in the Federal Regis-
ter statements it has reviewed and commented
on, coding the nature of its comments. The
code generally indicates endorsement of the
proposed action, request for more information
to determine environmental damage or objec-
tion to the action on environmental grounds.
EPA's obligation to review proposed Fed-
erally supported actions extends beyond that of
other agencies because of its role as the principal
Federal regulator of pollution control matters.
Under Section 309 of the Clean Air
Act, EPA must "review and comment in
writing on the environmental impact" of any
legislation, action or regulation proposed by
any Federal agency if it affects matters related
to EPA's jurisdiction. If EPA determines
that any proposed activity is unsatisfactory
from the standpoint of public health or welfare
or environmental quality, that determination
must be published and the matter referred
to CEQ.
EPA notifies the public of these comments
in the same manner that notification is made
of comments on impact statements. Generally,
EPA has no authority to stop a project
sponsored by another Federal agency; it
acts only in an advisory capacity to other
agencies, CEQ and the President.
8
-------
Impact Statements and the Public
The impact statement procedure affords
the public an opportunity to participate
in Federal decisions that may affect the
human environment. Each draft statement
must be made public by the responsible
agency at the time it is circulated for com-
ment, a date not less than 90 days before the
proposed action. Comments must be made
available also, and the final statement must
include a discussion of the objections and
problems raised in comments on the draft. The
final statement must be made public at least
30 days prior to the proposed action.
Statements are announced in the Federal
Register, although many agencies have
supplementary procedures to reach interested
citizens. EPA, for example, generally notifies
the press (1) when a decision is reached to
issue an impact statement, (2) when a draft
or final statement is prepared and (3) when
comments on other agencies' statements are
issued. Interested parties may view EPA's own
impact statements or EPA's comments on the
statements of other agencies by contacting EPA
headquarters in Washington, D.C. or any of its
ten regional offices. The agency welcomes public
comment.
EPA does not distribute impact statements
prepared by other agencies. These are available
directly from the agencies bearing primary
responsibility.
Interested people may submit comments to
agencies on any impact statement issued by
them. If an individual believes a draft state-
ment to be inadequate, he may offer written
comments on the draft. If he believes the
disposition of his comment in the final
statement to be inadequate, he may so notify
the agency involved and inform CEQ.
In addition to these mechanisms for public
participation, many agencies provide for public
hearings not only at various stages during the
performance of their statutory missions but
during the impact statement process itself.
The importance of the role citizens play in
the impact statement process has been recog-
nized by the courts. In many cases,
the courts have upheld the right, or standing,
of citizens to sue on environmental grounds.
-------
Impact Statements and the Courts
By September 1972 more than 200 cases had
been filed against Federal agencies in
courts throughout the nation alleging vio-
lation of NEPA's Section 102(2) (C). Initially,
cases involved suits to require the writing of
statements which agencies had deemed
unnecessary, often because of confusion over
the application of NEPA to projects begun
before the Act was passed. More recent cases
show a trend toward suits that assert the
insufficiency of statements already written.
Cases have been filed in widely varying
factual situations. Precise direction is difficult
to discern from the varied rulings, but two of
the most important decisions rendered by the
U.S. District Court of Appeals indicate some
of the issues courts are considering.
In Calvert Cliffs (Md.) Coordinating Com-
mittee v. AEC, the Court ordered the Atomic
Energy Commission to give more complete
attention to the environment in its internal
review process. Not only did the Court order
AEC to consider halting construction of nuclear
generating plants while environmental factors
are being examined, including the backfitting of
technological innovations, the Court also refused
to permit AEC to accept State or Federal agency
certification of water quality, instead of making
its own assessment. In this decision, the
Court interpreted NEPA as a mandate to
achieve a finely tuned and systematically
balanced analysis in each instance of envi-
ronment impact.
The Court broadened even further the range
of considerations that must be weighed in
Federal projects by ruling in Natural Resources
Defense Council v. Morton that the Department
of the Interior must discuss all reasonable
alternatives to a proposed action whether
or not such alternatives come within the direct
control of that particular department. The
case involved a lease sale of offshore oil in the
Gulf of Mexico. In its ruling, the Court wrote
that Interior should have given greater
consideration to potential alternatives to the
lease sale, including increased nuclear energy
development, Federal legislation or adminis-
trative action to obtain State-controlled off-
shore oil and changing the Federal Power
Commission's natural gas pricing policies.
10
-------
What's Happening?
f "he impact statement process has been
| designed to build into Federal thinking
-"*- an environmental concern not hereto-
fore implemented on a meaningful scale.
Just as court interpretations of NEPA are
increasing general public environmental aware-
ness, changes are being wrought within the
structure of the Federal Government that will
have profound influence on future Federal
activities.
Half of all environmental impact statements
have been written for roadbuilding actions,
and a number of planning changes are
apparent. Examples include increased land-
scaping and the creation of hiking and bicycle
trails along roadways.
After roadbuilding, the second largest
number of statements have been prepared for
watershed protection and flood control
projects. A portion of these come under the
jurisdiction of the U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers. Since NEPA was enacted, the Corps
not only has established several citizen environ-
mental advisory committees but has increased
its interdisciplinary environmental staff by
adding recreation resource planners, landscape
architects, biologists and foresters. As a direct
result of NEPA's review process a number of
projects have been suspended and many more
have been modified.
As an example, in March 1972, a draft
impact statement was prepared for a proposed
1760-foot pier for ocean research which would
extend into the Atlantic from Maryland's
Assateaguc Island National Seashore. The area
is one of the few remaining natural barriers
along the nation's eastern coastline in public
ownership. Because of the many opposing com-
ments on the statement, the Corps cancelled all
construction plans.
Another project cancelled was a proposed
dredging operation to improve safety for
barge crossings in the Gulf Intracoastal
Waterway from Carrabelle to St. Marks River,
Fla. The project was suspended when it was
determined that the dredging would adversely
affect the natural habitat of shellfish and other
fish in the area.
Stimulated partly by the NEPA process, the
Department of Housing and Urban Development
11
-------
is rewriting its minimum design standards
for family dwellings to include improved
insulation to reduce energy consumption,
better control of erosion, sedimentation and
siltation at individual homesites, and acoustic
materials that will reduce excessive noise.
Problems have arisen, however, on projects
that were nearing the construction phase or
were under construction when NEPA was
passed. In many situations the substantial
commitment of resources makes it difficult and
expensive to modify such projects to minimize
adverse environmental effects. Nevertheless,
as environmental considerations are integrated
into agencies' plans in the future such
problems can be avoided by formulating
projects at the outset in a pattern that will
reduce adverse effects.
Trends in State and Local Governments
Rcognizing the need for broader consid-
eration of environmental consequences
at an early date, a number of states
have passed statutes requiring environmental
impact statements on state actions analogous
to the statements required of Federal agencies
by NEPA. These states include California,
Washington, Delaware, Montana, Wisconsin,
North Carolina and Indiana as well as the Com-
monwealth of Puerto Rico. Hawaii, also, has
implemented impact statement requirements
through Executive Order, and Arizona requires
similar statements with respect to fish and
game interests.
Similar action is under consideration by
Colorado, Florida, Idaho, Illinois, Kentucky,
Massachusetts, Minnesota, Ohio, Oklahoma
and New Mexico.
All in all, important innovations in federal
and state environmental regulations are taking
place. At both levels, the pace of new institu-
tional development in environmental man-
agement has quickened beyond expectation.
The reader is free to quote or reproduce any part
of this publication without further permission.
Written by Carolyn Harris
12
-------
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Washington, D.C. 20460
202—755-2750
Regional Offices
Boston, Massachusetts
02203
617-223-7210
New York, New York
10007
212-264-2525
Philadelphia, Pennsylvania
215-597-9800
Atlanta, Georgia 30309
404-526-5727
Chicago, Illinois 60606
312-353-5250
Dallas, Texas 75201
214-749-1962
Kansas City, Missouri
64108
816-374-5493
Denver, Colorado 80203
303-837-3895
San Francisco, California
94111
415-556-2320
Seattle, Washington
98101
206-442-1208
States covered
Connecticut, Maine,
Massachusetts, New
Hampshire, Rhode Island
Vermont
New Jersey, New York
Puerto Rico, Virgin
Islands
Delaware, Maryland
Pennsylvania, Virginia
West Virginia, D.C.
Alabama, Florida,
Georgia, Kentucky,
Mississippi,
North Carolina,
South Carolina,
Tennessee
Illinois, Indiana,
Michigan, Minnesota,
Ohio, Wisconsin
Arkansas, Louisiana,
New Mexico, Oklahoma,
Texas
Iowa, Kansas,
Missouri, Nebraska
Colorado, Montana,
North Dakota,
South Dakota,
Utah, Wyoming
Arizona, California,
Hawaii, Nevada,
American Samoa, Guam,
Trust Territories of the
Pacific, Wake Island
Alaska, Idaho,
Oregon, Washington
SEPTEMBER 1972
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
OFFICE OF PUBLIC AFFAIRS
WASHINGTON, D. C. 20460
------- |