As the editors of Environmental Practice, we welcome all readers to this special issue on the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). NEPA has long been an interest of many environmental practitioners, perhaps especially those in the National Association of Environmental Professionals (NAEP), whose incorporation came five years after NEPA was signed into law on January 1, 1970.

Ever since 1970, environmental professionals have labored to make the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) live up to its worthy and lofty promises. Is it possible, however, that reform is needed in both NEPA and some long-standing practices in NEPA work? An impressive range of considerations in the American Journal of Public Health suggests both the law and practice may need change.

Dr. Lynton K. Caldwell, Professor Emeritus at Indiana University; Bloomington, Indiana, was one of the primary thinkers involved in writing the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA). He worked closely with the staff of the late Senator Henry Jackson (D, WA); Senator Jackson, together with the late Senator Edmund Muskie (D, ME), was a major leader in moving NEPA through the Congress to the desk of the late President Richard Nixon (R). President Nixon signed the bill into law on January 1, 1970.

Be it a prehistoric flint-striker for starting fires, a wrench for repairing an engine, or a computer model for simulating ground-water contaminant transport, tool making is one of the paramount traits distinguishing humans from other species. Progress witnessed in most disciplines, the sciences in particular, greatly depends on developing “tools of the trade.” While many environmental disciplines have benefited greatly from development of modern tools, the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA) has lagged noticeably. Rigorous tools, techniques, and approaches are needed if NEPA is to achieve its full potential.

Environmental impact statements (EISs) and environmental assessments (EAs) are optimally authored by interdisciplinary teams comprised of specialists assigned to each environmental resource that is potentially subject to significant impacts. A typical team might include a biologist for addressing wildlife and threatened and endangered species, an economist for addressing employment and social services, a hydrologist or geo-hydrologist for addressing water resources, an archaeologist or historian for addressing cultural resources, and an urban planner for addressing land use and transportation. From its inception, the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) has directed agencies to use a “systematic, interdisciplinary approach” to ensure the “integrated use of the natural and social sciences and the environmental design arts” [42 USC 4322(2)]. The Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) has stated that the disciplines of EIS preparers should “be appropriate to the scope and issues identified in the scoping process” (40 CFR 1502.6).

The National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) has been federal law since 1970. Relatively little attention, however, has been paid to how NEPA is actually implemented by the more than 80 federal departments and agencies that plan or permit activities subject to NEPA's requirements. The authors conducted a comparative study of the NEPA process as implemented by 12 different federal agencies. The study found that the authority of the officials responsible for NEPA and the scope of their duties vary considerably from one agency to another. Nevertheless, several general observations and conclusions emerged from the study. Collectively, agency NEPA officials face increasing workloads; however, most of the NEPA offices studied have incurred reductions in both their budget and staff positions in recent years. In part due to these constraints, most agency headquarters NEPA offices lack a national tracking system to monitor the numbers or types of NEPA documents that their agency produces. In none of the 12 agencies studied did NEPA emerge as the principal cause of excessive delays or costs; however, NEPA compliance officers frequently cited needs for additional guidance and training in the analysis of cumulative and indirect effects and for more specific guidance on the appropriate level of analysis. Several agencies have developed elements of what could be called “NEPA Best Practices,” but no formal process exists for sharing these practices with other federal agencies. The authors present recommendations based on these findings that are intended to address significant issues and contribute to improving the NEPA process.

The National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) regulations, at 40 CFR 1508.27(b) (3), list effects on “cultural resources” among the variables that must be considered in judging the significance of a proposed action's environmental impacts. In common though very unfortunate practice, “cultural resources” are often equated with “historic resources,” defined in the National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA) to mean places of real estate included in or eligible for the National Register of Historic Places.

Two-and-a-half thousand years ago, the legendary Chinese General Sun Tzu wrote in his classic book The Art of War: The highest form of generalship is to balk the enemy's plans; the next best is to prevent the junction of the enemy's forces; the next in order is to attack the enemy's army in the field; and the worst policy of all is to besiege walled cities…

An approach to stakeholder involvement known as the Dialogue process has been an integral part of the US Department of Defense Assembled Chemical Weapons Assessment (ACWA) Program from its inception. It has provided a means of soliciting stakeholder input before key decisions are made. The projects developed under the ACWA Program are characterized as major federal actions and therefore also must meet the requirements of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). One of these is the requirement for public participation in the environmental impact assessment process. This case study describes the ACWA Dialogue and NEPA processes, and examines their relationship in the implementation of the ACWA Program. The examination suggests that involving the public at the beginning of a program through a Dialogue-like process can introduce environmental considerations early in the project development process and contribute to the development of a more informed public. These factors improve the overall efficacy of public participation, strengthening the link between project development and environmental assessment in a manner consistent with the original intent of NEPA.

In early 2002, the Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA) completed a revision of its Environmental Management System (EMS). The new EMS is designed to fully align with the International Organization for Standardization (ISO) 14001 EMS standards. The EMS incorporated a new Environmental Review Process as an integral component. It established clear roles and responsibilities for the agency NEPA (National Environmental Policy Act) staff and organizations across TVA, introduced process improvements and standardization measures, and made structural changes to bring about increased efficiency and effectiveness in NEPA reviews. The NEPA process was further strengthened by its integration into the revised comprehensive EMS. A new Environmental Policy and Principles was adopted that reestablished the TVA commitments to environmental protection and stewardship, to assess and minimize the effects of TVA operations on the environment, and to involve the public. An Achievement Plan was developed to assure that TVA meets its corporate environmental commitment; that plan recognized the EMS as the principal tool for achieving that goal. Corporate environmental objectives and targets were established, and new methods to measure the overall environmental performance of TVA were introduced. Significantly, the NEPA process was directly linked to other EMS processes, including those for environmental training, communication and stakeholder involvement, records management, environmental auditing, corrective and preventive action, performance monitoring and reporting, and management review. These systematic linkages work together to reinforce all aspects of NEPA performance and to provide improved environmental compliance, cost savings in environmental management programs, and measurable improvements in achievement of TVA environmental objectives. The TVA experience, which takes an agency-wide rather than a facility-based approach to EMS development, may offer insights and an alternative strategy to other agencies addressing NEPA/EMS implementation issues.

Public and regulatory agency scrutiny of large-scale infrastructure projects has grown in recent years. There is national attention on the issues of urban expansion and the preservation of open space and fragile ecosystems. This has made the substantive assessment of indirect impacts and cumulative effects an increasingly important component of environmental studies conducted under the auspices of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). This article describes the NEPA assessment of indirect impacts and cumulative effects as conducted for the proposed Ohio River Bridges Project in the Louisville, Kentucky, metropolitan area. The project's size and complexity required the detailed study of many NEPA environmental issues. These issues included the range of alternatives to meet varied transportation needs, land use and community impacts, environmental justice concerns, aesthetics, potential effects on National Register historic properties and districts, water quality, wetlands, and threatened and endangered species, among others. The project captured the interest of local and regional residents, business and property owners, civic leaders, local interest groups, and national environmental organizations. In this article, three objectives are accomplished. First, the article presents an overview of indirect and cumulative effects analysis and the mandate to do them. Second, the article presents a seven-step assessment process for indirect impacts and cumulative effects. This method is adapted from Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) guidance that identifies resources affected, other major actions, geographic limits and time frames for analysis, and the methods, tools, and techniques used to analyze each resource. And third, the article presents some of the results or specific outputs of the indirect and cumulative effects analysis (ICEA) for this important project and briefly discusses potential mitigation options that have been considered.

The direct and indirect effects of the events of September 11, 2001, are widespread. One of the lesser-known indirect effects is a perceptible shift in federal agency compliance with the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). To avoid the dissemination of information thought to be of use to potential terrorists, some federal agencies have acted to limit the availability of NEPA documents after they have been released. Others have removed information deemed to be “sensitive” from NEPA documents prior to their public release. Still others have doubted the need for NEPA documents in particular circumstances, given “national security” implications. This article reviews the legal requirements regarding public disclosure of NEPA documents and the application of NEPA to actions involving national security, including the application of NEPA in emergency situations. In the author's view, actions other than full compliance with the terms of current regulations are not only ineffective, but also shortsighted.

Like the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), state environmental policy acts are intended to incorporate consideration of environmental impacts into governmental decision making. This article reviews and compares environmental policy acts in Massachusetts, Connecticut, North Carolina, and Washington State with NEPA in order to assess differences between the various policies. The review focuses on three aspects of the national and state environmental policy acts: jurisdiction, documentation of impacts, and public participation. Jurisdiction varies among the states based on what is considered to be a governmental action, but even states with broad jurisdiction lack the ability to directly enforce mitigation or other commitments made in environmental impact assessments. The general features of state impact documentation are similar and are clearly modeled after NEPA; however, the amount of detail required in the documentation varies among states. Public participation requirements are largely discretionary; only two of the states have mechanisms in place that enable the public to require a hearing as part of the process. The use of the Internet for providing public notice is common to all environmental policy acts reviewed here, but it should remain coupled with more traditional forms of public notice to reach the widest possible audience.

NEPA practitioners are keenly aware of Title I, Section 102 of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), especially its references to using a systematic, interdisciplinary approach to environmental assessment. Most NEPA practitioners are also knowledgeable about Title I, Section 101, which stresses the importance of preserving historic, cultural, and natural resources, and of achieving a balance between population and economic growth and resource use. Few of us, however, are aware of the nobler aspects of Section 101 that emphasize our responsibility as trustees “to create and maintain conditions under which man and nature can exist in productive harmony,” not only for the present, but “for succeeding generations.” This article has three objectives. First, it traces the evolution of our environmental awareness by describing the social and cultural motivations that led this country to enact NEPA and other federal environmental laws. Second, the article assesses where our profession is today after 30-plus years of NEPA—for example, its effectiveness in protecting the environment and maintaining diversity of species. Third, the article looks ahead into the new century and speculates what will be required of us as environmental stewards, not only technically but also socially and emotionally, to meet environmental challenges—for example, the challenge of natural disaster impact assessment. The article suggests in part that there is a resonance in the natural world that can strike a chord within our beings that not only enlivens our spirits, but also stirs our imaginations and stimulates our highest creative efforts. To achieve the above objectives, the article journeys through 30 years of literary writings—from Roethke's The Far Field (1964) and Carson's Silent Spring (1962) and The Sense of Wonder (1965), to Oliver's American Primitive (1978), House of Light (1990), and West Wind (1997), and Steingraber's Living Downstream: An Ecologist Looks at Cancer and the Environment (1997).

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.

In the early 1990s, the US Department of Energy (DOE) initiated a draft Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) for the Safe Interim Storage of Hanford Tank Waste (New Tank EIS) at the Hanford Site near Richland, Washington. The preferred alternative involved construction of up to six enormous high-level radioactive waste storage tanks, with a total projected price tag of $435 million. The need for additional storage space was considered urgent; project proponents had already decided on the final course of action and were adamant in pushing the project along a particularly aggressive construction schedule, as the project manager was determined to implement this project in record time. The project strategy was straightforward— merely document their decision in the EIS as quickly as possible and then get on with the job of constructing the new tanks!