Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-m6dg7 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-19T06:54:04.636Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEWS AND CASE STUDIES: Ultimate Streamlining: Making National Environmental Policy Act Documents as Small as the Law Will Allow

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  09 February 2015

Owen L. Schmidt
Owen L. Schmidt*
Affiliation:
Owen L. Schmidt, B.A., M.A., J.D., NEPA Consultant, Owen L Schmidt LLC, Portland, Oregon.
*
Address correspondence to: Owen L. Schmidt, Owen L Schmidt LLC, PO Box 18147, Portland, OR 97218-8147; (phone) 503-789-4854; (e-mail) oschmidt@att.net.
Get access

Abstract

The smallest possible National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) document is one that cannot be made more streamlined. A NEPA document could not be more streamlined than to present eight elements of essential information as outlined in this article. Neither an environmental assessment nor an environmental impact statement would include a distinct, separate no-action alternative. Instead, today’s situation would be extended to the same point in the future, for purposes of comparison, as are the action alternatives. NEPA documents for projects would not develop alternatives to the proposal. Instead, NEPA documents would only develop alternatives that accomplish the same thing as intended by the proposed alternative. An environmental assessment would have no alternatives except for mitigating actions not already included in the proposed action. NEPA documents would not include exhaustive lists of possible environmental and other social and cultural consequences. Instead, relevance would determine which of these aspects are analyzed and compared (though under current NEPA regulations it seems that relevance determinations should be included in NEPA documents). Ultimate streamlining uses plain language. It meets all minimum legal requirements. It takes the fewest pages and should take the least time. It is the least amount of work that can produce the desired outcome.

Environmental Practice 16: 309–315 (2014)

Type
Features
Information
Environmental Practice , Volume 16 , Issue 4 , December 2014 , pp. 309 - 315
Copyright
© National Association of Environmental Professionals 2014 

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.)

References

Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ). 1978, November 28; amended 2011, July 11. 40 CFR: Protection of Environment—Index to Parts 1500 through 1508. CEQ, Washington, DC. Available at http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/granule/CFR-2011-title40-vol33/CFR-2011-title40-vol33-part-id1102/content-detail.html.Google Scholar
Schmidt, O.L. 2010. NEPA Models and Case Lists. Rose City Park Press, Portland, OR, 824pp.Google Scholar
US Congress. 1946, June 11. Administrative Procedure Act. US Congress, Washington, DC. Available at http://biotech.law.lsu.edu/Courses/study_aids/adlaw/.Google Scholar
US Congress. 1970, January 1. 42 USC 4321 et seq.: National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA), Public Law 91–190. US Congress, Washington, DC. Available at http://energy.gov/nepa/downloads/national-environmental-policy-act-1969.Google Scholar