Deborah Painter (USA)
I am an ecologist and general environmental scientist, specialising in transportation, energy and industrial development planning to minimise deleterious environmental impacts. I live in the United States and have also written several articles for this magazine. I appreciate just how important local geology and soil science are in one of the aspects of work I do: researching and writing National Environmental Policy Act documents. This is the third of three articles on how environmental scientists apply this knowledge.
Part 1 detailed geology and the hazardous materials site assessment of a property (Fig. 1; see Environmental scientists and geology (Part 1): The first phase of an environmental geology investigation). Part 2 dealt with wetland and water permitting and how geology is important in that process (Fig. 2; see Environmental scientists and geology (Part 2): Geology and soil science in the ‘Wetlands and Waters Permitting’ process in the USA).
Both of these areas of environmental due diligence are parts of every National Environmental Policy Act document, or “NEPA” document. When I write one of these, I must thoroughly document that these two potential issues – and twenty more – have been examined, and that any remediation for hazardous materials and the specifically required permits for work in wetlands and waters, if any, are completed or in progress.
The National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) has an interesting and unfortunately obscure history. It was the idea of United States Senator Henry M “Scoop” Jackson. NEPA was signed into law on 1 January 1970 by then-president Richard M Nixon. Its framers felt that a quality environment for all Americans was vital and they knew how many factors often competed with valuable farmland, manageable noise levels and other issues. NEPA laid the groundwork for many other Federal laws that had environmental health in mind.
Using the NEPA process, agencies prepare the document themselves or hire consultants to prepare it. Agencies also provide opportunities for public review and comment and it’s a quite democratic process, really. If the public is enthusiastic about the project, or if the public doesn’t want it, this is revealed in the document’s public involvement phase. I have seen some amazing changes take place in the design of projects when the Federal, state and local governments realise how people really feel about a project as originally proposed.
When is a NEPA document needed?
When Federal funds are being used for a project or there are state funds being used, and the state wants to assure that environmental due diligence is being addressed, a NEPA document is written. The United States is not the only nation with these kinds of laws and regulations. Eighty countries have very similar regulations, many using NEPA as their original template.
How does the public, including resource agencies, find out about a proposed Federal or state project?
Resource agencies are formally consulted by letter early in the process to advise them of the project’s “footprint”, that is, the limits of grading and ground disturbance, either temporary or permanent, and both vertical and horizontal (Fig. 3).
The letter also explains the project’s purpose. As I do my research on the impacts, agencies have the opportunity to debate the project and all alternatives to the proposed work that were first examined and then discarded. The focus is on getting a project that does the job it was supposed to do, with minimal environmental impacts. Agencies may recommend further avoidance and minimisation measures. I already know what sort of surveys and studies are likely to be required, so the project can have a successful document. I start on those immediately and I can’t underestimate the cost and time needed for the studies, especially if specialists are contracted for some of them.
There are three levels of documents:
- The smallest is the Categorical Exclusion, for types of projects with very small footprints. Memoranda of Agreements between the agencies have decided that these do not necessitate a Public Notice and a Public Hearing after they are reviewed by the resource agencies.
- Then there is the Environmental Assessment, for projects that have a larger footprint and several impacts, and do need a Public Notice and a Public Hearing.
- The largest is the Environmental Impact Statement, for projects with many significant impacts and a large footprint. These projects need a Public Notice and a Public Hearing.
We’ll focus on Environmental Assessment, since it is much more common than the Environmental Impact Statement and has more interesting complexities than the Categorical Exclusion type of projects.
The desired result at the conclusion of the Environmental Assessment is a ‘Finding of No Significant Impact’ to show that the proposed work does not need the Environmental Impact Statement. But before we get there, we have certain steps we must take. The issues and resources are:
- air quality,
- agricultural land,
- cultural resources (Fig. 4),
- local geology, topography and soils (Fig. 5),
- hydrology and water quality,
- wildlife and habitat,
- threatened and endangered species,
- floodplains and wetlands,
- environmental justice,
- Native American and Native Hawaiian tribes,
- community services (such as emergency response and recreational areas; Fig. 6),
- solid and hazardous materials,
- transportation and parking,
- utilities, and
- the electromagnetic spectrum.
After a study of each, I can complete the document and gather up all attachments and appendices. The draft document is then ready for its first review by the resource agencies and, after that, a Public Hearing. A Public Notice is published twice, digitally and on paper, over a two-week period in a newspaper of general circulation in the area of the project. The Public Notice advises that the document will be available in one public library for reading for at least 30 days and then the project proponents decide on a location, usually the town hall or a school, where people can show up to discuss the project or, if they prefer, send in comments using email. Their questions will be answered. If there are major objections to the project, these will be examined closely.
After their comments and the agencies’ comments are addressed, the second draft of the Environmental Assessment is written, incorporating any changes. If the project has only a few impacts, it will remain an Environmental Assessment and a Finding of No Significant Impact is signed by the agency having the greatest commitment to the project and who will ultimately approve the project. This is published as a second Public Notice in the same newspaper. Comments are thus solicited for another 30 days. After the second round of review, any comments are incorporated into the final document and it is sent to the agency. The project can then go to construction.
Here is a real-life example. In January 2017 the Capital Region Airport Commission, which manages and owns the Richmond, Virginia International Airport, told my company they wanted to construct 19 separate improvements to this 1,012ha airport that serves both civil and military needs. Just a few were:
- an expansion of a concourse building that would add new gates,
- the conversion of a runway to a taxiway,
- a new fibre optic line,
- repairs to a runway,
- repairs to Taxiway “A”,
- a new compressed natural gas station,
- a new vehicle car wash at the maintenance building,
- an east side general aviation expansion in the form of one new building and a paved area for several additional cargo delivery aircraft, and
- a new radio tower.
During the development of the Environmental Assessment I completed on behalf of the Federal Aviation Administration, I filled out a Farmland Conversion Impact Rating Form for the United States Department of Agriculture’s approval, documenting that no farmland was to be impacted, as no land within the airport property had undergone cultivation for many decades.
A small cemetery in a stand of trees within the airport’s perimeter fence had previously been documented in a ten year old report. I consulted with the State Historic Preservation Officer, went over this report which they had in their files, and gained agreement that, as long as construction stayed outside an area they asked us to delineate with flagging, there would be “no effect” to cultural resources.
The town of Sandston’s ball field was just outside the airport’s perimeter fence near where the fibre optic cable was to be laid and near where the East Side general aviation expansion was to be constructed. I researched the ball field and learned the schedule for games (Fig. 7). There would be some overlap of construction timing and the timing of the late afternoon and weekend games, but not enough to cause noise, light or vibration problems.
I completed a delineation of a small parcel of forested land covering approximately 1.6ha, which was to be the site for the radio tower. Delineation consists of a comprehensive field survey of soil mapping units, dominant vegetative cover and hydrology. I determined that there were no jurisdictional wetlands or waters within this parcel or near it. US Army Corps of Engineers scientists visited the location and confirmed in writing that there were no wetlands present within it (Fig. 8).
As there were two bald eagle nests previously documented within a kilometre of the project, I completed an analysis under the Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act , which found that the airport was well outside the buffer zone established by the Act for either nest, and no light, vibration or noise disturbance of these nests would take place (Fig. 9).
The endangered peregrine falcon had the potential to occur within the airport property: it nests on tall structures. None of the proposed work was near the taller structures at the airport and no documented sightings of the species had to date occurred. The endangered northern long-eared bat had the potential to occur within the airport as it rests in trees. However, it has specific requirements for old growth forest, which was not present near or at any of the proposed construction sites. The endangered swamp pink, a flowering plant of infrequently inundated forested wetlands, was documented from wetlands within 0.80km of the airport, but since no wetlands would be filled or excavated, it was unlikely to be impacted.
A deteriorated hangar near the site of the proposed runway repair had been demolished two years ago and our company had completed a Phase III environmental site assessment at that time. It entailed removal of benzene, trans-1, 2-dichloroethene, 1, 1-dichloroethene and vinyl chloride from the groundwater. Reports from monitoring well data were still being submitted to the state agency that oversees disposal and removal of hazardous waste. I documented that remediation in the form of annual sampling and monitoring of groundwater by our team of geologists and industrial hygienists was ongoing, and no issues had thus far been noted (Fig. 10). Data from the state agency showed five additional hazardous waste incidents outside the airport property and I documented that these were all tanks that were in the process of removal and of no concern.
I then oversaw completion of a quantitative air quality analysis for both the construction of the concourse expansion and the daily added use of these new gates by jetcraft and/or propeller driven craft, as well as all other new proposed construction elsewhere (Fig. 11). The equipment operation and the daily use by aircraft would not result in emissions that exceeded threshold levels of the regulated air pollutants.
The Environmental Assessment draft was made available for public comment and we received no comments from private individuals. Agency comments were abundant and routine. The Finding of No Significant Impact was written by the Federal Aviation Administration and published in the newspaper. We received no more comments. The NEPA project was completed in December 2017 and the project went to construction on schedule.
|The other parts in this series comprise|
|Environmental scientists and geology (Part 1): The first phase of an environmental geology investigation|
|Environmental scientists and geology (Part 2): Geology and soil science in the ‘Wetlands and Waters Permitting’ process in the USA|
|Environmental scientists and geology (Part 3): Geology and soil science in the ‘National Environmental Policy Act document’ process in the USA|
Cowardin, L. M., V. Carter, F. C. Golet, and E. T. LaRoe. 1979. Classification of Wetlands and Deepwater Habitats of the United States. FWS/OBS-79-31. US Fish and Wildlife Service, Washington, D.C.
County of Henrico, Department of Utilities: http://henrico.us/utility/.
Division of Water Resources. 2010. “Methodology for Identification of Intermittent and Perennial Streams and their Origins, Version 4.11”. North Carolina Department of Environmental Quality, Division of Water Resources. Raleigh, North Carolina.
Environmental Laboratory. 2012. “Regional Supplement to the Corps of Engineers Wetland Delineation Manual: Eastern Mountains and Piedmont,”Technical Report ERDC/EL TR-12-9. U.S. Army Engineer Waterways Experiment Station. Vicksburg, Mississippi.
Environmental Laboratory. 1987. “Corps of Engineers Wetlands Delineation Manual,” Technical Report Y-87-1. U.S. Army Engineer Waterways Experiment Station. Vicksburg, Mississippi.
Executive Order 11988. 1977. Floodplain Management. May 24, 1977.
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) Airport Environmental Handbook Order 5050.4B, National Environmental Policy Act Implementing Instructions for Airport Actions, April 28, 2006 (FAA 2006a).
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) Airport Lighting Equipment Certification Program Advisory Circular number 150/5345-53D, September 26, 2012.
Federal Aviation Administration Office of Environment and Energy Aviation Emission and Air Quality Handbook Volume 3 Update 1. January 2015.
Federal Aviation Administration Office of Environment and Energy National Environmental Policy Act Desk Reference (FAA 2001) and FAA Environmental Impacts: Policies and Procedures Order 1050.1F July 2015.
Federal Register, Volume 72, Number 145, Notices. Department of Transportation Federal Aviation Administration Federal Presumed to Conform Actions under General Conformity. Pages 41525 – 41569. July 3, 2007.
Henderson, L. E., L. J. Farrow, and H. G. Broders, 2008. Intra-specific effects of forest loss on the distribution of the forest-dependent northern long-eared bat (Myotis septentrionalis). Biological Conservation 141-1819-1828.
Johnson, J.B., J. E. Gates, and W. M. Ford, 2008. Distribution and activity of bats at local and landscape scales within a rural-urban gradient. Urban Ecosystems. 11: 227-242.
Kershner, Jim. NEPA, the National Environmental Policy Act. History Link.org: https://www.historylink.org/File/9903.
USA.com Population Data Census Block 980100. Population and Race, Income and Careers. Website accessed 20 January 2017: http://www.usa.com/sandston-va-income-and-careers.htm.
U. S. Census 2019 Profile of General Population and Housing Characteristics: 2010 – Henrico County, Virginia. Website accessed on 17 August 2021: https://data.census.gov/cedsci/all?q=henrico%20county%20virginia
U. S. Census 2019. Profile of General Population and Housing Characteristics: 2010 – Richmond city, Virginia. Website Accessed on 17 August 2021: https://data.census.gov/cedsci/profile?g=0500000US51760.
U. S. Department of Agriculture, Web Soil Survey Page: https://websoilsurvey.sc.egov.usda.gov/App/HomePage.htm.
U. S. Fish & Wildlife Service. 2021. Endangered Species Page: https://www.fws.gov/endangered/.
U. S. Fish & Wildlife Service. 2021. National Wetlands Inventory Wetlands Mapper: http://www.fws.gov/wetlands/.
U. S. General Services Administration NHPA Section 106 Tribal Consultation Guidance: https://www.gsa.gov/resources-for/native-american-tribes/nhpa-section-106-tribal-consultation.
Virginia Department of Environmental Quality, 1992. Virginia Erosion & Sediment Control Handbook (3rd Edition).
Virginia Department of Environmental Quality Air Quality Planning and Emissions web page: https://www.deq.virginia.gov/air/air-quality-planning.