NEPA Substantive Effectiveness Under a Procedural Mandate: Assessment of Oil and Gas EISs in the Mountain West

Ruple, John; Capone, Mark

doi:10.2139/ssrn.2585207

Cited by 2 publications

(4 citation statements)

References 2 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Some projects did quantify the relative impact of each alternative on climate change (mostly net GHG emissions), and around one-quarter of projects talked about explicit ways that the project was designed to lessen emissions or be more adaptive. However, NEPA is a procedural requirement, and agencies have no obligation to select the least environmentally-damaging alternative (Baker 2011, Ruple andCapone 2016). That agencies can comply by simply documenting impacts and demonstrating that they took a 'hard look' 4 at those impacts means there is no hard incentive directly from NEPA for federal infrastructure to be more climate-friendly.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…This work also raises a larger question of whether NEPA is the right tool to address climate change. As discussed earlier, NEPA's procedural focus means that projects with substantial environmental impacts (e.g., large GHG emissions) are legal as long as agencies took a 'hard look' at those impacts (Ruple and Capone 2016). Additionally, EIA addresses individual project decisions, and those decisions may map poorly onto regional-let alone global-collective action problems.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Many EIA processes also have a strong focus on providing opportunities for the public to learn about and provide input into infrastructure decisions . As a procedural requirement, EIA itself cannot restrict what infrastructure projects are built where (Baker 2011, Ruple andCapone 2016). Instead, EIA's aim is to provide information on the relative costs and benefits of a project to allow decision-makers a more informed basis for decision-making (Evans 2014).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

NEPA and climate change: consideration of climate mitigation and adaptation in infrastructure review processes

Ulibarri

Han²

2022

Environ. Res.: Infrastruct. Sustain.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Addressing climate change requires a shift in the planning, design, and operations of infrastructure. Reducing greenhouse gas emissions will require decarbonizing energy, water, transportation, and other infrastructures. And the long-term resilience of many infrastructure projects will be affected by expected changes in precipitation, sea level, heat and cold spells, and natural hazards like hurricanes and wildfires. Many scholars and practitioners have suggested that Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) --a required review of the environmental impacts of infrastructure projects--can serve as an opportunity to encourage infrastructure to be more climate friendly. In the United States (like many other jurisdictions), federal agencies are not required to address climate change in EIA reviews, but guidance from the Council on Environmental Quality advises them to consider greenhouse gas emissions and the effects of climate change. This paper applied qualitative content analysis to assess integration of climate change into Environmental Impact Statements (EISs) in the United States. We found that most EISs included some consideration of climate change, most frequently with a few brief mentions rather than extensive integration. We also found more focus on climate mitigation than adaptation, in both recognizing potential impacts and managing those impacts. Surprisingly, infrastructure that is more directly related to climate change--water and energy infrastructure, as well as land management--had lower overall climate integration than transportation, information technology, or buildings and operations. As exploratory work, this research suggests that federal agencies could do more to mitigate greenhouse gas emissions in approved projects and in particular to make infrastructure more adaptive to climate change. The work also raises a number of questions as to whether EIA is the right regulatory tool to encourage climate friendly infrastructure.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

NEPA and climate change: consideration of climate mitigation and adaptation in infrastructure review processes

Ulibarri

Han²

2022

Environ. Res.: Infrastruct. Sustain.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…262 Other research found a relationship between the number of alternatives considered and achievement of NEPA's goal to reduce environmental impacts-a larger number of alternatives resulted in fewer environmental impacts. 263 Agencies should not be shy about sharing NEPA data. Transparency regarding the NEPA process has proven to increase efficiency.…”

Section: Ground Change In Good Information Measure Changes and Adapt ...mentioning

confidence: 99%

Evidence-Based Recommendations for Improving National Environmental Policy Act Implementation

Ruple¹,

Pleune²,

Heiny³

2022

cjel

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

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.

show abstract

NEPA Substantive Effectiveness Under a Procedural Mandate: Assessment of Oil and Gas EISs in the Mountain West

Cited by 2 publications

References 2 publications

NEPA and climate change: consideration of climate mitigation and adaptation in infrastructure review processes

NEPA and climate change: consideration of climate mitigation and adaptation in infrastructure review processes

Evidence-Based Recommendations for Improving National Environmental Policy Act Implementation

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About