From proposal to decision. Suggestions for tightening up the "NEPA process"

Patrick G. Cheney, David Schleicher

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

1 Citation (Scopus)

Abstract

Although the process of documenting compliance with NEPA (the National Environmental Policy Act) requires no drastic revisions, it can be managed more rigorously. Suggestions for revision can be grouped under five major steps: 1) getting a complete proposal from the applicant; 2) getting the decision-making process onto the right decision-making path; 3) modifying the applicant's proposal 4) going down a shorter path through the EA/FONSI (environmental assessment and finding of no significant impact) or through categorical exclusion review; and 5) going down the longer path through the EIS. Step 2 is perhaps the most critical, because there a decision must be made whether to write an EA/FONSI or an EIS, on the basis of whether the proposal would "significantly affect ... the ... environment." In the past, this decision has not always been made promptly or rigorously. Accordingly, we suggest that the agency responsible for NEPA compliance should develop a system (a "black box"), consisting of a core group of specialists working with an interdisciplinary team, using sophisticated techniques for modeling impacts and directing both their research and their writing according to the concept of significance. By determining more efficiently and reliably whether the impacts of a proposal would be significant, such an approach would improve management of the total process.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)89-98
Number of pages10
JournalEnvironmental Impact Assessment Review
Volume5
Issue number1
DOIs
StatePublished - Jan 1 1985

Fingerprint

Environmental Policy Act
environmental assessment
environmental policy
compliance
decision making
applicant
decision-making process
modeling
exclusion
decision
management
Group

All Science Journal Classification (ASJC) codes

  • Geography, Planning and Development
  • Ecology
  • Management, Monitoring, Policy and Law

Cite this

@article{93461fb946ba4256830686d9f4a81a02,
title = "From proposal to decision. Suggestions for tightening up the {"}NEPA process{"}",
abstract = "Although the process of documenting compliance with NEPA (the National Environmental Policy Act) requires no drastic revisions, it can be managed more rigorously. Suggestions for revision can be grouped under five major steps: 1) getting a complete proposal from the applicant; 2) getting the decision-making process onto the right decision-making path; 3) modifying the applicant's proposal 4) going down a shorter path through the EA/FONSI (environmental assessment and finding of no significant impact) or through categorical exclusion review; and 5) going down the longer path through the EIS. Step 2 is perhaps the most critical, because there a decision must be made whether to write an EA/FONSI or an EIS, on the basis of whether the proposal would {"}significantly affect ... the ... environment.{"} In the past, this decision has not always been made promptly or rigorously. Accordingly, we suggest that the agency responsible for NEPA compliance should develop a system (a {"}black box{"}), consisting of a core group of specialists working with an interdisciplinary team, using sophisticated techniques for modeling impacts and directing both their research and their writing according to the concept of significance. By determining more efficiently and reliably whether the impacts of a proposal would be significant, such an approach would improve management of the total process.",
author = "Cheney, {Patrick G.} and David Schleicher",
year = "1985",
month = "1",
day = "1",
doi = "10.1016/0195-9255(85)90056-3",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "5",
pages = "89--98",
journal = "Environmental Impact Assessment Review",
issn = "0195-9255",
publisher = "Elsevier Inc.",
number = "1",

}

From proposal to decision. Suggestions for tightening up the "NEPA process". / Cheney, Patrick G.; Schleicher, David.

In: Environmental Impact Assessment Review, Vol. 5, No. 1, 01.01.1985, p. 89-98.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

TY - JOUR

T1 - From proposal to decision. Suggestions for tightening up the "NEPA process"

AU - Cheney, Patrick G.

AU - Schleicher, David

PY - 1985/1/1

Y1 - 1985/1/1

N2 - Although the process of documenting compliance with NEPA (the National Environmental Policy Act) requires no drastic revisions, it can be managed more rigorously. Suggestions for revision can be grouped under five major steps: 1) getting a complete proposal from the applicant; 2) getting the decision-making process onto the right decision-making path; 3) modifying the applicant's proposal 4) going down a shorter path through the EA/FONSI (environmental assessment and finding of no significant impact) or through categorical exclusion review; and 5) going down the longer path through the EIS. Step 2 is perhaps the most critical, because there a decision must be made whether to write an EA/FONSI or an EIS, on the basis of whether the proposal would "significantly affect ... the ... environment." In the past, this decision has not always been made promptly or rigorously. Accordingly, we suggest that the agency responsible for NEPA compliance should develop a system (a "black box"), consisting of a core group of specialists working with an interdisciplinary team, using sophisticated techniques for modeling impacts and directing both their research and their writing according to the concept of significance. By determining more efficiently and reliably whether the impacts of a proposal would be significant, such an approach would improve management of the total process.

AB - Although the process of documenting compliance with NEPA (the National Environmental Policy Act) requires no drastic revisions, it can be managed more rigorously. Suggestions for revision can be grouped under five major steps: 1) getting a complete proposal from the applicant; 2) getting the decision-making process onto the right decision-making path; 3) modifying the applicant's proposal 4) going down a shorter path through the EA/FONSI (environmental assessment and finding of no significant impact) or through categorical exclusion review; and 5) going down the longer path through the EIS. Step 2 is perhaps the most critical, because there a decision must be made whether to write an EA/FONSI or an EIS, on the basis of whether the proposal would "significantly affect ... the ... environment." In the past, this decision has not always been made promptly or rigorously. Accordingly, we suggest that the agency responsible for NEPA compliance should develop a system (a "black box"), consisting of a core group of specialists working with an interdisciplinary team, using sophisticated techniques for modeling impacts and directing both their research and their writing according to the concept of significance. By determining more efficiently and reliably whether the impacts of a proposal would be significant, such an approach would improve management of the total process.

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=0022233938&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=0022233938&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1016/0195-9255(85)90056-3

DO - 10.1016/0195-9255(85)90056-3

M3 - Article

AN - SCOPUS:0022233938

VL - 5

SP - 89

EP - 98

JO - Environmental Impact Assessment Review

JF - Environmental Impact Assessment Review

SN - 0195-9255

IS - 1

ER -