Reviewing an Environmental Assessment (EA)
Question 1: Is the EA organized into approximately the following elements? If so, what are the pros and cons of this sort of organization?
• Cover sheet
• Summary
• Table of contents
• Purpose of and need for action
• Alternatives including proposed action
• Affected environment
• Environmental consequences
• List of preparers
• List of agencies, organizations, and persons to whom copies of the EA were sent
• Index
• Appendices (if any)
Discussion: The elements listed are those given in the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) regulations as the appropriate subdivisions of an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS). Many agencies use these elements to structure EAs as well. Using them has the advantage of providing consistency among agency environmental documents, and perhaps facilitating the work of contractors; however, the purpose of an EIS is fundamentally different from that of an EA. This kind of organization may not be the most efficient and clear way to achieve the purpose of the latter.
An EIS reveals environmental impacts and alternatives to the decisionmaker and to the public, and indicates which alternatives are environmentally preferable. The decisionmaker is then free to select an alternative based not only on environmental considerations but on all other factors as well, including cost, mission requirements, and so on. An EA, on the other hand, is supposed to provide the basis for answering a single question: does the action have the potential for a significant impact on the quality of the human environment?
So, in the example you have analyzed, does the selected format help or hinder the analyst in reaching a clear and defensible conclusion about the potential for significant impact?
Question 2: Does the EA present alternative ways of achieving the purpose of the project? If not, is there a good reason it does not?
Discussion: Although the requirement to discuss alternatives is not as explicit in the regulatory language dealing with EAs as it is with regard to EISs, alternatives should be discussed unless there is a good reason not to. If there is such a reason, the agency ought to be able to explain what it is. In any event, if there is an alternative that you think is preferable, there is nothing wrong with challenging the agency about why they did not look at it.
Question 3: Does the EA describe the contexts in which impacts may occur? If so, what are they?
Discussion: Check 40 CFR 1508.27 for the kinds of contexts that should be addressed. What contexts are relevant to you? Did the agency ignore an important context, e.g., the context of the affected region or affected interests?
Question 4: Does the EA discuss the intensity of likely impacts, as outlined in 40 CFR 1508.27?
Discussion: Look at each of the items included in the outline of intensity measures; consider which ones are relevant to your concerns. Were these measures systematically looked at in the EA? If not, this is something to challenge.
Question 5: Does the EA describe historic properties subject to possible impact?
Discussion: Since historic properties are explicitly identified in 40 CFR 1508.27 as among the things to be considered in measuring intensity of effect, affected historic properties certainly should be identified. There should be some kind of systematic linkage to Section 106 review.
Question 6: Does the EA describe cultural resources other than historic properties? If so, what are they?
Discussion: Consider all the other cultural resource legal requirements – Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act (NAGPRA), American Indian Religious Freedom Act (AIRFA), and the others, as well as NEPA itself.
Question 7: Does the EA discuss what effects are likely on cultural resources?
Discussion: Since the EA is all about whether there will be significant impacts, it should be pretty explicit about what effects may occur. Is it? Be alert to vague statements and uncertainties (e.g., "inventories have not been completed," "no cultural resources are known to exist"). Also be on the lookout for unsubstantiated statements ("No significant impacts are anticipated . . . "), and be alert to deferral ("Impacts on historic properties will be mitigated under Section 106").
Question 8: Does the EA propose ways of avoiding, reducing, or mitigating adverse effects on cultural resources? What are they? Do you think they are adequate?
Discussion: Remember that if the EA does not lead to an EIS, it (or the FONSI) has to demonstrate that there will be no significant impact. So if the EA identifies any potential significant impacts, it ought to say (or the FONSI –Finding of No Significant Impact – ought to say) how these will be avoided, mitigated, or otherwise reduced below significance. If it does not, that is a flaw. Of course, you can argue with the agency about the adequacy of its mitigation measures. Remember that the critical test is whether the measures reduce the level of impact below significance. What constitutes a "significant" impact can be debated, and you should debate it if you do not agree with the agency. In any event, the agency should be able to say why it does not think there will be a significant impact and defend its decision.
Question 9: Is it likely that cultural resource legal authorities, in addition to NEPA, are relevant to the project and its effects? If so, how does the EA address them?
Discussion: Think about each non-NEPA cultural resource law and the resources to which it pertains. Has each one been addressed? Do they all need to be, given the kinds of resources and effects likely to be involved? Is the way each realistically predictable kind of effect is addressed adequate, with reference to the requirements of the pertinent laws? For example, have the NAGPRA regulations been followed if the project might unearth Native American cultural items on Federal land?
Question 10: Is the EA responsive to culture-related environmental justice concerns?
Discussion: Does it look like there are low-income populations or minority communities involved? Consider both populations that actually live in the area to be affected and groups that may use the area for subsistence, recreation, religious, or other cultural reasons. If such populations may be involved, have special efforts been made to involve them, seek out their concerns, and address them? Is it likely that there will be disproportionate, significant impacts? If so, have adequate provisions for mitigation been made to reduce these impacts below significance?
Question 11: Does the EA reflect consultation with stakeholders having cultural resource concerns? Has the consultation been adequate?
Discussion: Has a reasonable effort been made to find stakeholders and to involve them? Have they actually been consulted? If there are cultural, linguistic, or other barriers to their participation, have these been successfully addressed? This is very often a weak point in EA analyses.
Question 12: Does the EA lead to a clear and understandable conclusion as to whether the project is likely to have significant impacts on the quality of the human environment? Do you agree with the conclusion from a cultural standpoint? Why or why not?
Discussion: This, of course, is where the rubber meets the road. Your letter should bring together your observations on all the preceding questions, reach a clear conclusion, and challenge the agency about any inadequacies.