NEPA and Environmental Planning : Tools, Techniques, and Approaches for Practitioners - Chapter 2 pot

In contrast, NEPA provides a comprehensive planning process, but lacks a set of intrinsic tools for effectively implementing its procedural requirements.. These checklists have been used

Approaches for Improving and Streamlining NEPA

This chapter describes tools, techniques, and approaches for improving and streamlining National

Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and environmental planning problems As illustrated by the

following story, the success that an agency has in streamlining or improving NEPA is, to a large

measure, dependent on how that agency chooses to practice the Act

2.1 NEPA AND PROCESSIONARY CATERPILLARS

As many biologists will testify, processionary caterpillars meander their way through tree branches,

each one with its head fitted snugly against the rear extremity of its predecessor The long, winding

procession thus formed gives the caterpillars their aptly deserved designation

Intrigued by this behavior, the naturalist Jean-Henri Fabre lured a colony of these creatures onto

the rim of a pot In due time, the caterpillars began to snuggle up to one another, and after forming

an interconnected chain eventually began to move around in a large circle Since the chain had no

beginning or end, Fabre expected that the caterpillars would soon tire of this unceasing parade and

head off in a new direction Such was not the case

Fascinated, Fabre placed a supply of food next to them, but to no avail Undeterred by the food

that was outside the domain of their circle, the caterpillars continued on To his dismay, apparently

propelled by sheer force of habit, the creeping circle continued edging ever onward in the same

unceas-ing circle for 7 days and 7 nights Finally, exhaustion and starvation did them in The moral of the story

is that they were unable to break convention and venture out beyond their established paradigm.1

2.1.1 I MPROVING F EDERAL P LANNING

Today, federal agencies are increasingly being asked to do more with less Efficiency is vital to the goal

of successfully implementing its mission Thus, to avoid going the way of the processionary

caterpil-lars, agencies must be open to new and more effective paradigms for complying with environmental

requirements This goal requires an institutional framework within which modern methodologies can

be applied to improve the planning process Perhaps most importantly, there must be a top-down

will-ingness to accept modern tools, techniques, and approaches for improving planning processes

Once innovative approaches have been instituted, practitioners must be trained to use them For

example, the U.S Army reports that training is a particularly valuable instrument for streamlining

NEPA Professionals are kept abreast on the latest approaches for implementing its requirements

The following sections have been written to assist agencies in improving their environmental

planning and analysis processes

2.2 SLIDING SCALE AND THE RULE OF REASON

Professional judgment and common sense must be exercised in determining the appropriate scope of an

analysis Because the following two principles provide powerful tools for reducing cost, delays, and the

amount of effort expended in implementing NEPA, they will be referred to throughout this chapter

2.2.1 T HE S LIDING -S CALE A PPROACH

The sliding-scale approach recognizes that the amount of effort expended in performing an

analy-sis is a function of the particular circumstances involved in each case A sliding-scale approach is

justified based on the following regulatory directions

Impacts shall be discussed in proportion to their significance There shall be only brief discussion of

other than significant issues (40 CFR § 1502.2[b])

NEPA documents must concentrate on the issues that are truly significant to the action in question,

rather than amassing needless detail (40 CFR § 1500.1[b])

Thus, environmental issues are investigated and regulatory requirements are applied using a degree

of effort commensurate with their importance In other words, the amount of effort expended in

investigating or addressing a specific regulatory issue should generally vary with the significance of

the potential impact and its importance to the decision-making process

2.2.2 R ULE OF R EASON

Professional experience suggests that a strict or unreasonable application of a regulatory

require-ment may lead to a course of action, decision, or level of effort that is wasteful or even absurd The

Rule of Reason is a mechanism used by the courts to inject reason into the NEPA process In other

words, common sense must be exercised in determining the scope, detail, and attention devoted to

issues, alternatives, and impacts considered in the analysis

2.3 STREAMLINING AN AGENCY’S NEPA PROCESS

In the mid-1990s, a vice president of a contractor working at the U.S Department of Energy’s

Hanford Site issued a memorandum listing the top 10 processes responsible for delaying site projects

The site procurement and NEPA processes were both listed in this memorandum as significant

problems

Instead of denying that a problem existed or placing blame elsewhere, a proactive effort was

mounted to identify approaches for improving the site-wide NEPA process The author was assigned

to an interdisciplinary team (IDT) to investigate and streamline this process

Two value engineering (VE) studies were performed The first study examined the NEPA

pro-cess in an effort to identify root problems for inefficiencies and develop a list of recommendations

for streamlining NEPA A second study was then performed to determine how NEPA could be

better integrated into site planning and decision-making As it turned out, the site planning process

was complicated and was being performed by a number of independent departments The goal of

this second study was twofold: (1) to prevent project delays by ensuring that NEPA was triggered

early in the planning process and (2) to improve the effectiveness of NEPA in contributing to the

Department of Energy (DOE) decision-making process

A VE approach that was used to examine the NEPA process is briefly summarized in the next

section As described in the companion book, Environmental Impact Statements, it is important to

note that VE techniques can also be used as a tool for helping to assess the scope or issues

consid-ered in an environmental impact statement (EIS)

Data such as the length of time required to complete NEPA projects were not collected prior

to the VE workshops described above Therefore, there were no statistics available for gauging the

level of success these VE workshops attained in terms of streamlining NEPA However, there was a

general consensus among management that the VE efforts led to a substantially streamlined NEPA

process and also improved the ability of NEPA to contribute to the early decision-making process

Perhaps most important, as a result of these improvement efforts, NEPA was dropped from the list

of 10 biggest problems on the Hanford Site

An overview of the VE process and how it can be adapted to resolve problems in NEPA are

described below

2.4 VE IMPROVEMENT PROCESS

The Society of American Value Engineers (SAVE) has revised the VE terminology, redefining VE as

the Value Methodology for which new standards have been published However, consistent with

com-mon usage in the engineering disciplines, this book will use the more traditional terminology of VE.2

A VE workshop can be an intensely focused effort, such that a large amount of work can be

accomplished in a very short period In determining the preliminary scope, the goal is to leave no

stone unturned Typically, a VE facilitator leads an IDT through a number of rigorous procedures

designed to break down preconceived and prejudicial notions and to consider new and alternative

concepts that might lead to better solutions.3 The facilitator is responsible for keeping the session

focused and for promoting an open and nonhostile atmosphere where prevailing assumptions,

mind-sets, and paradigms are challenged to identify more optimal solutions Prejudicial and preconceived

notions are openly challenged as the IDT identifies factors and solutions that might otherwise be

overlooked The typical sequence of steps is shown below

2.4.1 P RELIMINARY R EVIEW

As a first step in the typical VE process, a preliminary review or pre-study (e.g., on a specific

pro-posal, program, project, process, or design) may be useful in determining if the potential return

on investment is sufficient to justify a formal VE workshop Emphasis is placed on examining the

proposal/activity to determine if potential alternatives show promise for increasing value If a VE

study is deemed to be cost-effective, the pre-study is also used to

1 define the scope, objectives, and expected deliverables;

2 establish logistical elements necessary to ensure a successful result;

3 gather preliminary information; and

4 select the study group’s membership

If a decision is made to proceed into a formal VE workshop, a facilitator is assigned and charged

with responsibility for leading the VE team An IDT is carefully selected to include professionals

possessing a diverse range of technical expertise and experience The team challenges existing

paradigms and assumption in an effort to identify new or alternative concepts that may lead to

bet-ter solutions.3 As outlined next, the general VE process consists of a sequence of distinct steps or

phases

2.4.2 S EVEN P HASES

A standard VE study normally consists of the following seven distinct phases Each of these phases,

together with an emphasis on how they can be used to improve NEPA, is described in the following

sections:

Phase 1: Information phasePhase 2: Functional analysis phasePhase 3: Creativity phase

Phase 4: Evaluation and analysis phasePhase 5: Development phase

Phase 6: Presentation phasePhase 7: Post study/Implementation phase

With respect to streamlining the NEPA planning process, not all of the following phases are

neces-sarily pertinent or need to be performed Professional judgment must be exercised, on a case-by-case

basis, in determining those phases that can be most effectively integrated with NEPA planning

2.4.2.1 Phase 1: Information Phase

Information pertinent to the scope of the proposal (or action under investigation) is collected and

disseminated to the members of the VE study Limitations and constraints that may affect the study

results are identified and, if necessary, ranked with an assigned value For example, information

could be shared regarding how plans are formulated and who is responsible for making certain

types of decisions

2.4.2.2 Phase 2: Functional Analysis Phase

A tool referred to as a “function analysis system technique (FAST) diagram” is frequently developed

as part of a standard VE workshop The FAST diagram can be used to critically evaluate “how”

ver-sus “why” critical functions are currently performed or would be performed For example, a FAST

diagram might be prepared to question why certain steps in the planning process are carried out

Items that have high potential for added value may be earmarked for more detailed examination in

the later study

However, a FAST diagram does not necessarily generate information useful to improving an

agency’s NEPA process Because of the amount of effort necessary to construct a FAST diagram,

its utility (with respect to improving the NEPA planning process) should be carefully questioned

before an effort is launched to prepare such a diagram

2.4.2.3 Phase 3: Creativity Phase

Team participants are encouraged to exercise creativity with the objective of identifying potential

solutions for solving a particular problem Methods such as brainstorming are used to generate

innovative ideas for more detailed consideration For example, ideas could be sought for

streamlin-ing various aspects of the agency’s plannstreamlin-ing process

2.4.2.4 Phase 4: Evaluation and Analysis Phase

In this phase, ideas generated during the creativity phase are organized into concepts possessing

similar features These can then be solidified into potential alternatives and ranked using one of a

variety of techniques

One ranking technique that has been used is referred to as “Criteria Weighting Matrix and

Evaluation Analysis Ranking.” Another ranking technique known as the “Nominal Group

Tech-nique” is described in Table 2.1 Options are then evaluated with respect to their advantages and

disadvantages For example, this phase could be used to single out ideas that show the most promise

for streamlining the NEPA process

2.4.2.5 Phase 5: Development Phase

Potential improvement options deemed to have the greatest potential for improving the NEPA

pro-cess during the analysis step are further evaluated and developed into viable, efficient, and

cost-effective options or alternatives

2.4.2.6 Phase 6: Presentation Phase

Options for improving the NEPA process are documented in a report and presented as a study

proposal

2.4.2.7 Phase 7: Post Study/Implementation Phase

The workshop recommendations are considered and evaluated by the team and management Tasks

are assigned to individuals who are then responsible for implementing the chosen recommendations

for improving NEPA

2.4.3 U SING VE IN P REPARING AN EIS

The Office of Management and Budget has directed federal agencies to apply VE in planning major

federal projects exceeding a cost of $1 million.4 As a result, both the EIS and the VE are mandated

to be performed on major federal projects However, this raises a question: Is this simply another

case where overlapping or redundant requirements have been mandated?

This question can best be answered by examining the underlying purposes of VE and NEPA

VE provides a tool box of problem-solving techniques for analyzing problems and identifying

solutions However, VE is not a planning process

In contrast, NEPA provides a comprehensive planning process, but lacks a set of intrinsic tools for

effectively implementing its procedural requirements Thus, VE offers a set of tools that, potentially,

can manage various aspects of the EIS planning process To date, this connection appears to have gone

largely unrecognized An integrated NEPA/VE planning approach for complex projects such as

pre-paring a programmatic EIS may be advantageous as it provides an efficient means for complying with

both Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) and the Office of Management and Budget mandates

2.4.3.1 Comparison of VE with NEPA

Table 2.2 compares principal characteristics and goals of NEPA with those of VE While NEPA

and VE share strikingly similar goals and requirements, they are not redundant; in fact, not only

are NEPA and VE compatible, but also they complement each other Their commonality in goals

provides a foundation in which VE can be used as a tool for increasing the effectiveness of an EIS

planning process However, it should be noted that although VE and NEPA share many common

requirements, their underlying goals differ While VE offers many tools and techniques useful in

managing the NEPA process, its orientation is different The objective of VE is toward identifying

and solving root problems that are related to, but are not normally the underlying focus of, an EIS

scoping effort Accordingly, a successful strategy requires prudence in the selection of the

appropri-ate VE techniques that will be useful in preparing specific aspects of an EIS

TABLE 2.1

The Nominal Group Technique

Step 1: Generate ideas

The facilitator asks group members to write down the important problems or options for resolving these problems Team

participants write their ideas on note cards.

Step 2: Record ideas

A round-robin approach is used to record the ideas generated in Step 1 This process continues until all items have been

recorded Next, to prevent confusion, the facilitator asks each participant to explain briefly the items submitted

Participants are not allowed to criticize or critique any of the suggestions during this phase.

Step 3: Polling

A potentially long list of ideas must be narrowed down to capture the most salient ideas Many methods exist for

accomplishing this task One common method is to have each participant write down three ideas considered to be the

most important These techniques are tabulated by the facilitator A second round is then conducted to prioritize the final

list of ideas.

2.5 USING VE IN DETERMINING THE PRELIMINARY SCOPE OF AN EIS

This section describes how the author used a modified VE workshop approach in performing a

prescoping effort for a complex EIS A paper previously published by the author describes this

approach in more detail.15

As described earlier, pursuing a standard VE study is deemed at times to be an ineffective use

of scarce resources A considerable degree of forethought and professional experience is therefore

required in devising a cost-effective approach for using a VE approach in scoping an EIS

Accordingly, emphasis was placed on developing an approach where VE techniques could be

used specifically to focus and manage various aspects of the prescoping effort Once a strategy had

been developed, an agenda and workshop mission statement were prepared to provide a tangible

map for implementing the strategy The following process can be modified for use in

perform-ing a public scopperform-ing process and in identifyperform-ing, evaluatperform-ing, and managperform-ing other issues in the EIS

process

Results of this prescoping workshop provided an early indication of the issues, problems, and

levels of effort that would be required if it was found advisable to prepare an EIS Determining the

preliminary scope also provided a basis for forecasting the cost and resources required in preparing

the EIS Table 2.3 provides a simplified agenda, while Table 2.4 describes the goals and objectives

for this prescoping workshop Table 2.3 should be revised, as necessary, for performing a formal

public scoping process

2.5.1 A SSEMBLING AN IDT

To ensure that all relevant planning factors were captured, emphasis was placed on assembling an

IDT of experts Approximately 10 full-time and 15 part-time members participated The prescoping

workshop ran over four consecutive days

TABLE 2.2

Comparison of VE with NEPA

VE provides management tools useful in planning NEPA is a planning process.

The Office of Management and Budget has mandated

that VE be applied to the planning of all major

projects.

NEPA is the only federally mandated planning process applicable to all major federal actions.

Uses a systematic and interdisciplinary process to

arrive at a better value solution.

Is predicated on use of a “systematic interdisciplinary”

approach 5

Provides an important tool for assessing planning

problems.

“Combines” 6 other federal planning processes during the

“early” 7 planning phase.

Based on an unbiased and rigorous process Requires the use of a “public,” 8 unbiased, 9 and “rigorous”

process 10

VE should be applied early enough to assist in

decision-making It is not intended to justify decisions already

made.

An EIS must be prepared early enough to serve as an important contribution to decision-making The EIS is not to be used to rationalize or justify decisions already made 11

VE can be used to assess planning requirements (e.g.,

cost, schedule, environmental).

NEPA allows the consideration of cost and other factors in the analysis and decision-making process.

Necessitates a full and fair analysis of alternatives to

improve the value of the final product.

An EIS analysis must provide a “full and fair discussion” of impacts and reasonable alternatives 12

Promotes consideration of all possible alternatives An EIS must explore and objectively evaluate all reasonable

alternatives 13 Alternatives form the “heart” of the EIS 14

A kick-off meeting was held prior to initiating the VE workshop to discuss its purpose and

objectives, and to assign action items The prescoping workshop mission statement and agenda were

distributed at the meeting Certain members were identified and requested to prepare presentations

for the information sharing session to be held on the first day

TABLE 2.3

Integrated EIS/VE Prescoping Agenda

Day 1

1 Welcome and introductions (session guidelines and expectations).

2 Overview of the problem statement, agenda, VE, and EIS process.

3 Information sharing session.

4 Document potential decision-making assumptions.

5 Preparation of a FAST diagram for the no-action alternative.

Day 2

1 Brainstorming session to

identify criteria that might affect future decisions; and

identify high-level decisions that might need to be addressed by the EIS Rank decisions in importance.

2 Construction of a DIT (summarized below).

Day 3

1 (a) List, consolidate, and prioritize preliminary scope of facilities, functions, and issues to be considered in the EIS.

1 (b) Based on the key issues, develop a list of facilities and functions that would need to be analyzed in the EIS.

2 (a) De-scoping: determine issues that will not be included in the preliminary scope of the EIS.

2 (b) Document issues that are important but not included in the preliminary scope so that they can be revisited at a later

date Some issues might be flagged as candidates for later tiering.

3 Identify any outstanding issues or concerns.

4 Brainstorm ideas for reducing EIS cost and schedule in order to identify specific actions that can be taken to help

streamline the scope and EIS process.

Goals and Objectives of the Prescoping Workshop

Goals of the scoping workshop

• Determine preliminary scope of the actions, facilities, and operations requiring evaluation in the EIS.

• Identify methods for streamlining the EIS process.

• Define the scope of decisions that might need to be considered in the future.

• Reduce risk of later surprises (i.e., changes in scope resulting from inadequate communications or planning).

• Provide a basis for determining the cost and schedule of the EIS.

Objectives of the scoping workshop

• Develop a FAST diagram of the no-action alternative.

• Determine the underlying need for taking action Identify the purpose (objectives) that the proposal will need to meet.

• Construct a DIT to determine specific decisions that might need to be made (described in Chapter 8).

• Identify key issues and concerns.

• Identify factors that might influence the decision-making process.

• Determine issues that will not be included in the scope (de-scoping).

• Document issues that are important but not to be included as part of this scope, so that these issues can be revisited at

a later date (i.e., later tiering).

2.5.2 I NFORMATION P HASE

The prescoping workshop began with a review of the workshop mission statement and an

explana-tion of the process and techniques used The workshop then proceeded to the informaexplana-tion phase,

which was used to gather and share information that might have a bearing on determining the

preliminary scope Issues such as other ongoing NEPA activities, inconsistencies, gaps in NEPA

documentation, related documents and studies, and other related or planned projects were identified

during this phase Information such as keywords, memories (e.g., ideas and concepts), issues and

concerns, and assumptions were captured on flip charts The facilitator was responsible for keeping

the session focused on schedule Except for cases where unusual circumstances exist, it is

recom-mended that this phase be limited to no more than a few hours

An exercise was performed to identify key planning assumptions A brainstorming exercise

then followed in which the facilitator challenged the group to identify assumptions important to

this planning effort Assumptions identified during the remaining portion of the workshop were

Similarly, an exercise was performed to identify principal planning documents and studies that

might have a bearing on the preparation of the EIS Capturing such information at this early

plan-ning phase is important, not only because it may affect the scope, but also because it could prevent

duplication and wasted effort

A flip chart list was also maintained for capturing special issues and concerns raised throughout

the workshop Such a list should be referred to both in preparing the formal EIS scoping process and

in preparing the actual analysis

2.5.3 D ECISION -I DENTIFICATION P HASE

An EIS cannot properly support subsequent decision-making if it does not correctly anticipate and

address decisions that might require future consideration While such an observation appears

obvi-ous, it is not uncommon to find that the EIS has been completed only to discover that it does not

adequately anticipate the types of decisions that actually needed to be considered Such

discrepan-cies frequently result from disconnects between the scope of the analysis and the actual

decision-making that follows This observation is particularly true when dealing with complex actions or

dynamic circumstances

For this reason, the prescoping workshop used a systematic approach developed by the author

and referred to as decision-based scoping (DBS) and decision-identification tree (DIT), which is in

marked contrast to the way most scoping efforts are typically conducted A DBS approach is

espe-cially well suited for large or complex EISs, and in scoping programmatic EISs The DIT provided

a systematic methodology for identifying and mapping potential decisions that might need future

consideration by a decision-maker and which therefore need to be addressed in the scope of the EIS

The DBS and DIT are both detailed in Chapter 8

2.5.4 U NDERLYING N EED AND P URPOSE : D EFINITION

In support of the DBS approach, an effort was mounted to define the underlying need for future

action in a succinct manner Identifying and properly defining the “need” for taking action can be

deceptively complicated The need might at first appear intuitively obvious, yet on closer

inspec-tion confusion or differing views as to its true meaning may arise Note that Webster’s Dicinspec-tionary

defines “need” as “a want of something requisite, desirable, or useful.”

To this end, the group was challenged to identify the underlying need(s) Responses voiced by

the participants were recorded on a flip chart by the facilitator Next, the group reviewed, sorted, and

consolidated these responses to develop the required succinct definition of the primary or

underly-ing need Similarly, an exercise was conducted to determine potential objectives to aid in

identify-ing the underlyidentify-ing purposes As detailed in the companion text, Environmental Impact Statements,

continuously added to the flip chart list

precise definition of the underlying need is an important first step to take because it can drive the

range of alternatives that will be investigated later.16,17 Not surprisingly, even a small change in the

definition of need can have profound implications on the alternatives that are eventually chosen for

analysis Thus, correctly defining the need at this early stage can substantially improve the

effec-tiveness of the planning process that follows

Once consensus was reached regarding the need, the IDT was tasked with defining the

pur-pose for taking action The term purpur-pose should not be confused with the term need “Purpur-pose” is

defined in Webster’s as a “goal” or “object” to be obtained.

2.5.5 E NHANCING E FFECTIVENESS OF THE EIS P ROCESS

An effort was also mounted to identify methods and approaches for reducing cost and expediting

preparation of an EIS Brainstorming techniques were used to elicit ideas from participants in an

attempt to investigate every conceivable method for improving the efficiency and effectiveness of

the potential EIS The facilitator recorded suggestions offered by the participants on flip charts

Special VE techniques were used to evaluate these suggestions The evaluation consisted of three

distinct stages or rounds

In the first round, the group reviewed all the suggestions in an attempt to eliminate those that

were clearly unreasonable or of little value Item by item, the facilitator led the IDT through each

suggestion in an attempt to identify which of them could be dropped The rule used in this round

was that unanimous consensus had to be obtained before an item could be eliminated

Because of time constraints, the second and third rounds that followed were actually combined

into a single round for this EIS effort Normally, the second round consists of consolidating and

combining suggestions into manageable categories The third and final round normally involves the

use of matrix weighting methods, such as a nominal group technique, in an effort to generate a final

list of concepts On completing this task, the team formulated specific recommendations that could

be undertaken to expedite preparation of an EIS As a final step, success-oriented criteria (e.g., cost

and schedule considerations, ease of implementation, and budget constraints) were used to prioritize

the recommendations for consideration by decision-makers

2.5.6 I NVESTIGATING THE N O -A CTION A LTERNATIVE

Where an EIS is being prepared for a complex proposal or program, the IDT might also want to

consider preparing a FAST diagram to assess activities currently being conducted as part of the

no-action alternative The FAST diagram technique is founded on the observation that a rigorous

evaluation of functions underlining a particular process provides a basis for evaluating problems

and alternatives The FAST diagram provides a systematic tool for identifying these functions

Process functions were first identified and described using sentences containing active verbs

and proper nouns Using these functions, a diagram was constructed illustrating “how” and “why”

particular functions are conducted Scanning the diagram from right to left reveals “why” particular

functions are performed Conversely, scanning the diagram from left to right reveals the sequence

of “how” functions are conducted When completed, the sequence of how functions are conducted

should be internally consistent with the reason why each function is conducted

Next, an effort was undertaken to identify methods for improving or optimizing a program

func-tion A FAST diagram can provide a useful tool for understanding the current baseline, identifying

functional requirements and relationships, and challenging preconceived assumptions and ideas

Where appropriate, other planning considerations such as resource and infrastructure requirements

may also be identified

As described in Section 2.4.2.2, preparation of a FAST diagram can be resource intensive,

con-suming a substantial amount of a scoping workshop schedule And, as previously stated, in some

cases a FAST diagram might contribute valuable information, whereas in other cases little or no

benefit would be derived from its construction Lacking a clear and specific objective for its use,

practitioners are ill-advised to devote scarce resources constructing a FAST diagram For this

rea-son, it is well to reiterate that prudence and professional judgment must be exercised in determining

the appropriate use and application (if any) of a FAST diagram with respect to scoping

2.5.7 E LIMINATING I SSUES FROM THE S COPE

One of the principal objectives of the scoping process is to eliminate unimportant issues De- scoping

is a powerful method for reducing the cost of an EIS and it is a requirement that is often

underuti-lized.18 Efforts should be focused on eliminating insignificant or irrelevant issues Properly applied,

such a method can substantially reduce time and resources required in preparing an EIS

Partly for this reason, an effort was mounted to identify candidate issues for elimination

dur-ing the formal scopdur-ing process Emphasis was placed on documentdur-ing issues that were considered

important but eligible for deferral from the immediate scope of this EIS These issues could thus be

revisited, if necessary, at a later date (some issues might be flagged as candidates for later tiering)

2.5.8 I DENTIFYING O THER R ELATED R EQUIREMENTS

Regulatory requirements can profoundly influence cost, schedules, and the direction of future

actions For this reason, it is recommended that an exercise be performed to identify other related

environmental and regulatory drivers

For example, a preliminary matrix might be prepared of potential regulatory requirements

versus potential alternatives that eventually would be analyzed A regulatory compliance matrix

provides a “heads-up” so that the agency is not surprised by unanticipated requirements that may

emerge later The stage is now set for presenting the results

2.5.9 F INALIZING THE P RESCOPING E FFORT

The final phase involved is presenting the results of the prescoping workshop Focused toward peer

review, this phase allows the agency and decision-maker(s) to review the potential scope to

deter-mine if issues that have not been addressed remain

In this case, the general consensus was that construction of the DIT, in conjunction with the

VE workshop, had been very effective in identifying what was otherwise a rather enigmatic set

of potential issues and actions With only one exception, the prescoping workshop successfully

identified principal issues and actions considered essential for analysis

It is important to note that at this stage the scope is still preliminary and may evolve once

addi-tional information or public scoping comments are received Still this effort was very effective in

providing an early indication of the scope, which was useful in planning the public scoping process,

identifying agency consultations, preparing cost estimates and schedules, and developing

prelimi-nary engineering and environmental support studies

Once this step has been completed, the stage is now set for preparing and issuing a notice of

intent (NOI), which completes the prescoping phase

A facilitated workshop approach such as the one described above may also offer a useful tool for

effectively managing and performing formal public scoping sessions Such an approach also has the

advantage of ensuring that each participant has an opportunity to provide feedback and voice opinions

2.6 A STRATEGY FOR EFFICIENTLY IMPLEMENTING A POLLUTION

PREVENTION PROGRAM

In 1990, the U.S Congress passed the Pollution Prevention Act.19 President Clinton issued an

executive order instructing federal agencies to implement pollution prevention (P2) measures in

1993.20 Similarly, the International Organization for Standardization (ISO) has developed a series of

environmental management, auditing, and performance standards known as the ISO 14000 series;

the ISO 14000 series speaks to the merits of pollution prevention, particularly from the standpoint

of establishing a top-level policy committed to pollution prevention

The following section describes a systematic strategy developed by the author for effectively

integrating P2 objectives with DOE Hanford Site projects and operations This integrated NEPA/P2

strategy received two Secretary of Energy commendations The purpose of the following example

is to illustrate how a federal facility’s NEPA planning process can be used to efficiently implement

a P2 program

Because project requirements, procedures, operations, and the details of each agency’s NEPA

process vary, the readers should consider this example from the perspective of how it can be adapted

to their own specific internal projects and programs

2.6.1 NEPA P ROVIDES AN I DEAL I MPLEMENTATION M ECHANISM

With very few exceptions, all proposed federal actions are potentially subject to NEPA’s

require-ments For this reason, NEPA provides the ideal mechanism or framework for efficiently reviewing

new (proposed) federal actions that may present opportunities to reduce pollution and waste

gen-eration While P2 is not specifically mentioned, its inherent objectives are captured in the purpose,

goals, and requirements of NEPA, and its implementing regulations Significant cost savings may

be realized by properly integrating NEPA with P2

NEPA regulatory direction is consistent with the purpose and goals of an integrated NEPA/P2

strategy (Table 2.5) Table 2.6 shows that NEPA’s policy is consistent with that of P2 As indicated

TABLE 2.5

NEPA’s Regulatory Direction is Consistent with an Integrated Pollution Prevention Act

• 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 (§ 1500.1[c])

• The NEPA process is intended to help public officials make decisions that are based on understanding of environmental

consequences, and take actions that protect, restore, and enhance the environment (§ 1500.1[c])

• Use all practicable means, consistent with the requirements of the Act and other essential considerations of national

policy, to restore and enhance the quality of the human environment and avoid or minimize any possible adverse effects

of their actions upon the quality of the human environment (§ 1500.2[f])

TABLE 2.6

NEPA’s Policy is Consistent with the Pollution Prevention Act

• “…to promote efforts which will prevent or eliminate damage to the environment and biosphere and stimulate the

health and welfare of man; to enrich the understanding of the ecological systems and natural resources important to the

Nation … (Sec 2 [42 USC § 4321])

• use all practicable means [to:]

fulfill the responsibilities of each generation as trustee of the environment for succeeding generations;

assure for all Americans safe, healthful, productive, and aesthetically and culturally pleasing surroundings;

attain the widest range of beneficial uses of the environment without degradation, risk to health or safety, or other

undesirable and unintended consequences;

achieve a balance between population and resource use which will permit high standards of living and a wide sharing

of life’s amenities; and

enhance the quality of renewable resources and approach the maximum attainable recycling of depletable resources.”

(NEPA, Sec 101 [42 USC § 4331][b], 1969)

in Table 2.7, NEPA is to be combined and integrated with other environmental requirements and

processes whenever practical; and, as demonstrated in Table 2.7, NEPA provides both an effective

and efficient environment framework for incorporating P2 objectives into new actions

2.6.2 NEPA P ROVIDES A C OMPREHENSIVE D ECISION -M AKING P ROCESS

A component essential to NEPA as well as to some aspects of P2 is a requirement to rigorously

analyze environmental impacts, alternatives, and mitigation measures As depicted in Table 2.8, the

NEPA regulations provide specific direction for analyzing actions such as P2 measures

NEPA provides decision-makers with many advantages not found in other environmental

pro-cesses Moreover, while NEPA mandates rigorous requirements for performing environmental

analyses, it places no substantive restrictions on agencies regarding the final decision that may be

reached NEPA only requires that the final decision has been adequately investigated, such that a

decision-maker can make an informed decision regarding the course of action to be taken NEPA,

therefore, allows decision-makers to consider many diverse factors, such as environmental impacts,

economics, schedules, technology, risk, and other practical considerations, in reaching a final

decision

Although P2 is often touted as a cost savings measure, some waste reduction actions may

actu-ally result in cost increases In practice, decision-makers may be faced with having to make difficult

tradeoffs between the goals of P2, other environmental requirements, scarce resources, cost, and

agency requirements Fortunately, NEPA provides decision-makers with a flexible and analytical

planning process for evaluating such tradeoffs and resolving dilemmas in an effort to reach a

ratio-nally based and legally defensible decision

2.6.3 P ROCESS FOR I NTEGRATING NEPA AND P2

A set of checklists has been prepared by the DOE for assessing a diverse range of activities in terms

of potential P2 measures These checklists have been used by employees to identify measures that

TABLE 2.7

Integrating NEPA with Other Environmental Processes

• Integrate the requirements of NEPA with other planning and environmental review procedures required by law or by

agency practice so that all such procedures run concurrently rather than consecutively (§ 1500.2[c])

• Integrating NEPA requirements with other environmental review and consultation requirements (§ 1500.4[k])

• Combining (combine?) environmental documents with other documents (§ 1500.5[i])

TABLE 2.8

NEPA Direction for Analyzing Actions such as Pollution Prevention Measures

• Use the NEPA process to identify and assess the reasonable alternatives to proposed actions that will avoid or minimize

adverse effects of these actions upon the quality of the human environment (§ 1500.2[e])

• Study, develop, and describe appropriate alternatives to recommended courses of action in any proposal which involves

unresolved conflicts concerning alternative uses of available resources as provided by Section 102(2)(E) of the Act.

(§ 1501.2[c])

• To assess the adequacy of compliance with Sec 102(2)(B) of the Act the statement shall, when a cost-benefit analysis

is prepared, discuss the relationship between that analysis and any analyses of unquantified environmental impacts,

values, and amenities (§ 1502.23)

• Rigorously explore and objectively evaluate all reasonable alternatives … (§ 1502.14[a])

could be taken to implement specific P2 measures It is important to note that P2 measures may be

applicable to a proposed action even though the action may not result in a significant impact

Figure 2.1 depicts a high-level integrated strategy developed for the U.S Department of

Ener-gy’s Hanford Site The NEPA process provided the framework for efficiently implementing a

com-prehensive P2 program Figures 2.2 through 2.4 describe the details of implementing the integrated

NEPA/P2 strategy.21 The readers should consider how this site-specific strategy could be modified

and adopted to other sites or programs

The following discussion focuses on describing the implementation of a P2 program rather

than describing specific aspects of the NEPA process itself As depicted in Figure 2.1, an integrated

NEPA/P2 process begins with identifying a need to take action

Identify need for taking action

Is categorical exclusion applicable?

Prepare EA?

Some entity such as a P2 Program Office reviews the proposal for P2 measures

See Figure 2.3

Prepare NEPA request form

Review proposed action:

- Identify preliminary P2 measures

NEPA determination meeting:

- Determine NEPA level

- Provide initial P2 guidance

Figure 2.4

See Figure 2.2

2.6.3.1 Categorical Exclusions

Typically, a review is performed to determine if a proposed action can be categorically excluded

from further NEPA review Specific details of a categorical exclusion (CATX) process may change

from agency to agency, depending on an installation’s internal procedures, requirements, and

con-straints Consequently, this section will not dwell on the specific implementation details of the

inte-grated NEPA/P2 process that was developed for the Hanford Site Instead, readers should consider

how a P2 program can be adapted to their specific internal CATX process A generalized summary

of the integrated NEPA/P2 process is described below

The CATX response is depicted by the diamond labeled “Is categorical exclusion applicable?”

in Figure 2.1 If the response is “yes,” the reader is directed to Figure 2.2 Figure 2.2 details the

process used in determining if and when P2 measures are applicable to an action that is eligible for

Submit CATX to agency’s NEPA

office for approval

Prepare and attach P2 checklist

to CATX Transmit copy of P2

checklist to some oversight

entity such as a P2 program

Office for review

Are P2 measures applicable?

Pursue action

FIGURE 2.2 Process for integrating pollution prevention measures with the CATX process.

Some agencies recognize two types of CATXs: (1) documented and (2) nondocumented This

step is depicted by the diamond labeled “Documented CATX?” in Figure 2.2 If the CATX requires

no documentation (“no” path, diamond labeled “Documented CATX?”), this strategy assumes

that the action and its impacts are essentially trivial, and it is therefore not practical to review the

action for potential P2 measures If the CATX requires documentation (“yes” path, diamond labeled

Scoping direction

Prepare P2 checklist

Transmit copy of P2 checklist to some entity such

as a P2 Program Office for review

Describe and analyze P2 measures in EA

Incorporate P2 into mitigation measures

Submit EA for review and approval

Append P2 checklist to EA

Document in EA that no

“reasonable” P2 measures were identified

Is P2 applicable?

Determine applicability of P2

Review proposed action Figure 2.3

No

Mitigated EA?

Input from P2 entity such as a P2 Program Office

Document adopted P2 measures in FONSI

Incorporate P2/mitigation into EMS (if practical)

Yes

Yes

No

Input Input

Issue FONSI

FIGURE 2.3 Process for integrating pollution prevention measures into EAs.

“ Documented CATX?”), a review is performed to determine if P2 measures are applicable to the

proposed action

The action is pursued if no practical P2 measures are identified (“no” path, diamond labeled

“Are P2 measures applicable?”) If practical P2 measures are identified (“yes” path, diamond labeled

“Are P2 measures applicable?”), an appropriate P2 checklist(s) is prepared and attached to the

docu-mented CATX for review If appropriate, the P2 Program Office (or equivalent) provides input and

Prepare P2 checklist(s) Transmit copy of P2

Checklist to P2 office

Public P2 input

Identify, screen, and describe reasonable P2 measures

Review reasonable alternatives for potential P2 measures

Begin internal scoping Figure 2.4

Some entity such as a P2 Program Office

Document adopted P2 measures in the ROD

Begin public scoping.

Request comments on P2

Review P2 scoping comments

Analyze P2 measures for

proposed action, alternatives, and mitigation

measures

Finalize EIS

Implement adopted P2 measures using EMS (if applicable)

P2 Post-EMS monitoring and auditing

Input

Input Input

FIGURE 2.4 Process for integrating pollution prevention measures into EISs.

assistance in preparing the P2 checklist A copy of the completed P2 checklist is transmitted to

some responsible entity such as a P2 Program Office Where practical, any adopted P2 measure

could be implemented and monitored through an environmental management system (EMS), such

as the one outlined in Section 2.7

2.6.3.2 Environmental Assessment Process

A different strategy is followed for actions involving preparation of an environmental assessment

(EA) This process might be triggered by filling out a NEPA request form (see box labeled “Review

proposed action,” Figure 2.3) The NEPA request form could be modified to require an initial

screening for potential P2 measures; a review is then performed to determine the applicability of

P2 measures The proposed action is reviewed to identify potential measures for achieving NEPA/

P2 goals such as reducing or preventing pollution, waste minimization, and energy conservation

Where appropriate, the P2 office assists in identifying potential P2 measures

If no P2 measures are considered practical (“no” path, diamond labeled “Is P2 applicable?”),

this fact is documented in the EA; the EA then continues along the standard NEPA path

If P2 measures are deemed to be applicable (“yes” path, diamond labeled “Is P2 applicable?”), a

P2 checklist(s) should be prepared indicating methods that can be implemented to minimize waste

and to prevent pollution A copy of the completed P2 checklist(s) is transmitted to the P2 office or

equivalent

As appropriate, P2 measures identified in the P2 checklist(s) are incorporated into the

descrip-tion of the proposed acdescrip-tion and reasonable alternatives described in the EA Any applicable P2

measures should then be reviewed to determine their effectiveness

If a mitigated EA is prepared (“yes” path, diamond labeled “Mitigated EA?”), applicable P2

measures could be incorporated into the mitigation measures

The P2 checklist(s) is appended to the final EA to be submitted for review and approval If the

EA is eligible for a finding of no significant impact (FONSI), the decision to adopt any applicable

P2 measures described in the EA should be documented in it Where practical, any adopted P2

measures could be chosen through the NEPA process (e.g., FONSI/record of decision [ROD]) and

implemented/monitored with an EMS

2.6.3.3 EIS Process

Where a proposed action involves preparation of an EIS (Figure 2.4), an effort could be performed

during the internal scoping process to identify potential P2 measures for achieving NEPA/P2 goals

such as reduction or prevention of pollution, waste minimization, and energy conservation Where

appropriate, the P2 office (or equivalent) provides assistance in identifying potential measures

As indicated in the box labeled “Prepare P2 checklist(s)” in Figure 2.4, a P2 checklist(s) can be

filled out indicating potential methods that could be implemented to minimize waste and prevent

pollution A copy of the completed P2 checklist(s) should then be transmitted to the P2 office

Potential pollution prevention measures identified in the P2 checklist(s), combined with input

obtained from the public scoping process, are reviewed to identify specific P2 measures for

investigation Reasonable P2 measures should then be incorporated into the description of the

pro-posed action, and reasonable alternatives described in the EIS The measures are then analyzed to

determine their effectiveness and potential impacts The analysis should also consider options and

costs for implementing P2 measures

The P2 checklist(s) is archived as part of the administrative record and the completed EIS is

submitted for review and approval The decision to adopt any of the P2 measures investigated in

the EIS would be documented in the ROD Where practical, any adopted P2 measures could be

monitored and implemented through an EMS The EMS could be used in a monitoring and auditing

capacity to ensure that the P2 measures are correctly implemented

2.7 NEPA AND ISO 14001

The effectiveness of NEPA as a planning tool is sometimes diminished because it has not been

properly either implemented or integrated into agency’s planning process In 1996, the author began

investigating commonalities and similarities which existed between NEPA and the relatively new

ISO 14001 EMS A final report was issued to the President of the National Association of

Envi-ronmental Professionals (NAEP) in 1997, outlining a process for integrating NEPA with an ISO

14001 EMS, which was published in 1998.*,22 In 2000, this report was reviewed and approved by the

NAEP Board of Directors and issued to the Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) as a strategy

that should be promoted to federal agencies The following section summarizes this strategy

Although this strategy is directed at integrating NEPA with an ISO 14001 certified EMS, it can

also be integrated with any EMS that is consistent with the ISO 14001 standard Hence, as used in

this chapter, the term EMS is interpreted to mean an EMS consistent with the ISO 14001 series of

standards This strategy has since been generalized to describe a process for integrating any

envi-ronmental impact assessment (EIA) process with an EMS.23

2.7.1 A N ISO 14001 C ONSISTENT EMS

The ISO 14000 environmental management standards define specific procedures to assist an

orga-nization in complying with applicable statutes, regulations, and environmental requirements;

min-imizing how the organization’s activities negatively affect the environment, and for continually

improving on the above ISO 14000 is similar to the ISO 9000 quality management system in that

both focus on the management process used (e.g., how a product is produced) rather than on the

ultimate quality of the product itself

An EMS is part of an organization’s management system The EMS specifies requirements and

procedures for implementing the organization’s environmental policy ISO 14001 provides an

interna-tionally accepted specification for the EMS The ISO 14001 EMS has the following five components:

Detail procedures for defining an environmental policy with a commitment to pollution prevention, continual improvement, and compliance with relevant environmental legisla-tion and regulations

Specific procedures for identifying an organization’s (products/services/activities) mental aspects, legal and other responsibilities, and environmental management programs

environ-Implementation and operation procedures; includes identification of responsibilities, ing and awareness, documentation, and operational controls

train-Developing measurable targets for meeting environmental objectives; verification and rective action procedures; includes monitoring and measuring performance to meet targets for continual improvement

cor-Review by management to ensure that the EMS is addressing changing conditions and information

Presidential Executive Order 13148 directed federal agencies to develop EMSs by the year

2005.24 As explained in more detail later, strong parallels exist between the goals and requirements

of NEPA and the specifications for implementing an EMS Because there is a general expectation

under an ISO 14001 EMS that action(s) will be taken to improve environmental quality,

perfor-mance of an integrated NEPA/EMS can provide a mechanism for infusing NEPA’s substantive

national policy goals into federal decision-making

Figure 2.5 shows a simplified process for implementing an EMS The EMS provides a

struc-tured system (plan-do-check-act) in which a set of management procedures is used to systematically

* Eccleston C.H., “ A Conceptual Strategy for Integrating NEPA with an Environmental Management System,” issued to

the President of the National Association of Environmental Professionals, 1997 Issued to CEQ, 1990/2000.

identify, evaluate, manage, and address environmental issues and performance The EMS provides

organizations with a mechanism which helps ensure that necessary actions are taken to integrate

environmental safeguards and compliance into day-to-day operations and long-term planning with

respect to an organization’s (e.g., including federal facilities) activities, products, and services

As depicted in Figure 2.5, the EMS employs a rigorous monitoring cycle for managing and

con-tinually improving an organization’s (federal facility) environmental performance The continuous

improvement cycle is achieved by identifying how the organization’s activities affect environment

quality This is accomplished through

assessing an organization’s environmental aspects (described later),establishing defined environmental targets and objectives,

training staff and defining departmental and personal responsibilities,cyclical monitoring and implementing corrective actions as necessary to avoid or mini-mize impacts, and

instituting procedures and controls for responding to emergencies

An EMS provides an effective mechanism for tracking, monitoring, and improving the

implemen-tation of the agency’s selected alternative, including mitigation measures and other commitments

established in final NEPA documents; monitoring such commitments can support internal auditing

requirements and identification of appropriate corrective actions

Both NEPA and EMS processes involve a review of activities to identify those with potentially

significant environmental impacts and to implement measures to avoid, minimize, or eliminate

the causes of adverse environmental impacts For reasons such as these, an integrated NEPA/EMS

methodology can substantially improve an agency’s environmental performance and thus

environ-mental quality and may reduce the cost of complying with NEPA and EMS requirements Some of

the key advantages of an integrated NEPA/EMS system are

incorporating NEPA documents and schedules into EMS objectives and targets;

archiving the NEPA administrative record and NEPA documents as part of the EMS tem for maintaining records;

sys-integrating NEPA mitigation commitments with other related regulatory requirements and EMS objectives and targets;

Develop plan to implement the policy

Implement the plan/policy

Monitor and develop a plan for correcting deficiencies in the policy

Review performance of the plan/policy

Revise plan/policy

FIGURE 2.5 Simplified overview of a typical EMS.

including NEPA impact assessments as part of the process of identifying the tal aspects under an EMS; and

environmen-monitoring the implementation of the selected NEPA alternative and applicable mitigation and monitoring commitments

Some agencies have already begun pursuing an integrated NEPA/EMS strategy For example,

new Forest Service planning regulations require 126 Forest Service administrative units to

imple-ment EMSs containing procedures for identifying and monitoring environimple-mental conditions The

preamble to the Forest Service regulations declares that:

… through the implementation of EMS, administrative units will be continually collecting and

evalu-ating the data necessary to create any document that may be required by NEPA This will make the

creation of accurate and relevant NEPA documents more efficient.25 (emphasis added)

2.7.2 W HY NEPA AND ISO 14001 C OMPLEMENT E ACH O THER

As depicted in Table 2.9, each system has its strengths and weaknesses; moreover, a weakness in

one system tends to be offset by the strengths of the other

Some of the principal characteristics outlined in Table 2.9 are described below

•

•

TABLE 2.9

How an ISO 14001 Consistent EMS and NEPA Complement Each Other

Substantive mandate Substantive actions are expected to be taken

which lead to continual improvement in environmental performance (and thus environmental protection).

Lacks a legally binding substantive mandate to protect the environment.

Goal ISO’s goal is to provide environment

protection by identifying impacts Its continual improvement system is used to reduce these impacts and improve performance

NEPA’s goal is to provide environment protection by ensuring

that environmental factors are considered during the early planning process.

Planning function A planning function is required which

provides a system for ensuring that decisions are appropriately implemented However, ISO 14001 does not prescribe a detailed process for performing the planning function.

Specifies detailed direction for performing an analysis of direct, indirect, and cumulative impacts.

Life cycle Details how to perform a life-cycle analysis

(ISO 14040 series).

An analysis of reasonably foreseeable impacts over the life cycle of the action

is required.

Significance Lacks detailed direction for interpreting

or determining the meaning of significance.

In addition to the context, 10 specific factors are detailed in the NEPA implementing regulations for determining the significance of environmental impacts.

planning process is defined, but it lacks