Evidence-Based Recommendations for Improving National Environmental Policy Act Implementation

J. Ruple, Jamie Pleune, Erik L. Heiny
{"title":"Evidence-Based Recommendations for Improving National Environmental Policy Act Implementation","authors":"J. Ruple, Jamie Pleune, Erik L. Heiny","doi":"10.52214/cjel.v47is.9479","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"The National Environmental Policy Act requires federal agencies to consider environmental impacts before acting.  NEPA is the Magna Carta of U.S. environmental law, a topic of intense debate, and the subject of ongoing rulemaking efforts.  Prior NEPA scholarship focuses almost exclusively on Environmental Impact Statements, which account for just 1% of all NEPA decisions.  Little is known about the length of time required to complete the other 99% of agency decisions, which involve a more streamlined review.  This is a critical gap in the literature because NEPA compliance involves an estimated 50,000 federal decisions annually.  NEPA reform, we believe, should begin with a careful understanding of NEPA practice at all levels of review.                                                                                                                                                 \nTo help advance effective NEPA reform, we studied over 41,000 NEPA decisions completed by the U.S. Forest Service between 2004 and 2020.  Using this data, we conducted a multivariate statistical analysis of the length of time required to complete the NEPA process at each level of review.  We then investigated factors associated with longer decisionmaking times.  Our model accounts for interactions between 3 levels of NEPA analysis, 43 activities involved in these decisions, 9 geographic regions, and the year of project initiation.  Contrary to widely held assumptions, we found that a less rigorous level of analysis often fails to deliver faster decisions.  Delays, we found, are often caused by factors only tangentially related to the Act, like inadequate agency budgets, staff turnover, delays receiving information from permit applicants, and compliance with other laws.  Improving NEPA efficacy, we argue, should therefore focus on improving agency capacity.  This approach, we believe, would improve the NEPA process and advance NEPA’s mandate to engage with key stakeholders and carefully consider environmental impacts before making decisions.","PeriodicalId":246399,"journal":{"name":"Columbia Journal of Environmental Law","volume":"9 1 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2022-04-11","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Columbia Journal of Environmental Law","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.52214/cjel.v47is.9479","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

The National Environmental Policy Act requires federal agencies to consider environmental impacts before acting.  NEPA is the Magna Carta of U.S. environmental law, a topic of intense debate, and the subject of ongoing rulemaking efforts.  Prior NEPA scholarship focuses almost exclusively on Environmental Impact Statements, which account for just 1% of all NEPA decisions.  Little is known about the length of time required to complete the other 99% of agency decisions, which involve a more streamlined review.  This is a critical gap in the literature because NEPA compliance involves an estimated 50,000 federal decisions annually.  NEPA reform, we believe, should begin with a careful understanding of NEPA practice at all levels of review.                                                                                                                                                 To help advance effective NEPA reform, we studied over 41,000 NEPA decisions completed by the U.S. Forest Service between 2004 and 2020.  Using this data, we conducted a multivariate statistical analysis of the length of time required to complete the NEPA process at each level of review.  We then investigated factors associated with longer decisionmaking times.  Our model accounts for interactions between 3 levels of NEPA analysis, 43 activities involved in these decisions, 9 geographic regions, and the year of project initiation.  Contrary to widely held assumptions, we found that a less rigorous level of analysis often fails to deliver faster decisions.  Delays, we found, are often caused by factors only tangentially related to the Act, like inadequate agency budgets, staff turnover, delays receiving information from permit applicants, and compliance with other laws.  Improving NEPA efficacy, we argue, should therefore focus on improving agency capacity.  This approach, we believe, would improve the NEPA process and advance NEPA’s mandate to engage with key stakeholders and carefully consider environmental impacts before making decisions.
改善国家环境政策法案实施的循证建议
《国家环境政策法》要求联邦机构在采取行动前考虑环境影响。《国家环境法》是美国环境法的大宪章,是一个激烈辩论的话题,也是正在进行的规则制定工作的主题。之前的NEPA奖学金几乎只关注环境影响报告,这只占NEPA所有决策的1%。至于完成其他99%的机构决定所需的时间长短,人们知之甚少,这些决定涉及更精简的审查。这是文献中的一个关键空白,因为NEPA合规每年涉及约50,000个联邦决定。NEPA改革,我们相信,应该首先仔细理解NEPA实践各级审查 .                                                                                                                                                为了帮助推进有效的《国家环境政策法》改革,我们研究了美国林务局在2004年至2020年期间完成的4.1万多项《国家环境政策法》决策。利用这些数据,我们对各级审查完成《国家环境政策法》过程所需的时间长度进行了多元统计分析。然后我们调查了与更长的决策时间相关的因素。我们的模型考虑了NEPA分析的3个层次、决策中涉及的43项活动、9个地理区域和项目启动年份之间的相互作用。与广泛持有的假设相反,我们发现,不那么严格的分析水平往往无法提供更快的决策。我们发现,延误往往是由与该法无关的因素造成的,比如机构预算不足、人员流动、从许可证申请人那里收到信息的延误,以及遵守其他法律。因此,我们认为,提高《国家环境政策法》的效力,应该把重点放在提高机构能力上。我们相信,这种方法将改善《国家环境政策法》的程序,推进《国家环境政策法》与主要利益相关者的接触,并在做出决策之前仔细考虑环境影响。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信