Hostname: page-component-76fb5796d-45l2p Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-29T11:12:19.137Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Case Studies Demonstrating a Systematic Process for Integrating the National Environmental Policy Act with Regulatory Agency Consultation

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  18 August 2005

Todd Stribley
Affiliation:
ICF Consulting, Fairfax, Virginia
Daniel F. Barone
Affiliation:
Tetra Tech EM Inc., Reston, Virginia
J. Peyton Doub
Affiliation:
Tetra Tech NUS, Germantown, Maryland
Get access

Abstract

The National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) is the basic national charter that establishes policy, sets goals, and provides a framework for comprehensive environmental planning. NEPA directs federal agencies to undertake an integrated environmental planning process that encompasses the totality of environmental resources. The NEPA process contains “action-forcing” mechanisms that prompt agencies to consult with other agencies possessing specialized expertise or regulatory jurisdiction over a potentially affected resource. Many of these consultations satisfy specific regulatory requirements through resource-specific regulations such as Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act and Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act. The case studies presented within this article are used to demonstrate a 9-step integrated process for integrating regulatory agency consultations and supporting studies with the completion of an Environmental Assessment (EA) or an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS). The three case studies (Case Study 1, a Supplemental EIS for the Meramec Regional Wastewater Treatment Plant; Case Study 2, an EA for a variety of water infrastructure improvement projects; and Case Study 3, an EA for the placement of an undersea cable within a National Marine Sanctuary) illustrate how regulatory agency consultations can be integrated into the NEPA process using this 9-step method. Implementation of the method ensures that (1) adequate planning, crucial project decisions, and environmental considerations are identified; (2) the chance of potential conflicts with regulatory agencies because of inadequate regulatory considerations is reduced; (3) timely and costly delays in the completion of the NEPA process are avoided; and (4) the NEPA process is streamlined to produce a legally defensible and comprehensive NEPA document.

Type
CASE STUDY
Copyright
© 2003 National Association of Environmental Professionals

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)