AASHTO IQED-2006 Improving the Quality of Environmental Documents (Revision 1)《提高环境文件质量.修改件1》.pdf

1、American Council of Engineering Companies1015 15th Street, 8th Floor, NWWashington, DC 20005-2605http:/www.acec.org/ Federal Highway Administration400 Seventh Street, SWWashington, DC 20590http:/www.fhwa.dot.gov/ 2006 by the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Offi cials, the Am

2、erican Council of Engineering Companies, and the Federal Highway Administration. All Rights Reserved. This book, or parts thereof, may not be reproduced in any form without written permission of the publisher. Printed in the United States of America.May 2006Improving the Quality of Environmental Doc

3、umentsA Report of the JointAASHTO/ACEC Committeein Cooperation with theFederal Highway AdministrationAmerican Association of State Highwayand Transportation Offi cials444 North Capitol Street, NW, Suite 249Washington, DC 20001http:/transportation.orgAmerican Association of State Highway and Transpor

4、tation Offi cialsISBN: 1-56051-348-9 Publication Code: IQED-1AASHTO Center for Environmental Excellence444 North Capitol Street, NW, Suite 249Washington, DC 20001http:/environment.transportation.org/IQED-1 Cover 2.indd 1 5/26/2006 11:32:18 AMii Acknowledgments AASHTO, ACEC, and FHWA gratefully ackno

5、wledge the contributions of the task team members who worked on this effort. In addition to the information provided in this guide, a wealth of information compiled by the Education Task Team will be accessible through AASHTOs Center for Environmental Excellence Web site. Quality and Clarity of NEPA

6、 Documents Task Team Team Leader Carol Lee Roalkvam Washington State DOT Brent Jensen Utah DOT Hal Kassoff Parsons Brinckerhoff Don Cote FHWA Resource Center Lindsay Yamane Parametrix, Inc. Jim Horrocks Horrocks Engineering Frank Danchetz ARCADIS Bob Esenwein Turner Collie 2) the legal sufficiency2o

7、f NEPA documents; and 3) the training and education related to NEPA and environmental documentation. This guide documents the efforts of the Quality and Clarity of NEPA Documents Team and the Legal Sufficiency Team. Findings from the Education Team, which will be updated frequently, will be made ava

8、ilable through AASHTOs Center for Environmental Excellence Web site. The first several chapters of this report address the quality and clarity of NEPA documents. These chapters offer recommendations on ways to improve the quality of NEPA documents by making them more effective, engaging, and useful

9、for the public and decision-makers, including focusing on the needs of reviewing regulatory agencies and the legal community. The issue of legal sufficiency for transportation-related NEPA documents is addressed in Chapter 5. It is intended to provide state DOTs, engineering consultants, and FHWA wi

10、th a better understanding of the FHWA legal sufficiency review. It also provides practical advice for improved development of quality and legally adequate NEPA documents. 142 U.S.C. 4332; 40 C.F.R. 1500-1508. 2FHWA regulations at 23 C.F.R. 771.125(b) and 23 C.F.R. 771.135(k) require the formal legal

11、 sufficiency review of all final environmental impact statements (EIS) and final Section 4(f) evaluations prior to approval of those documents by the FHWA Division Office. AASHTO and ACEC survey respondents identified a range of problems related to writing quality and format of NEPA documents: Too l

12、arge, wordy, repetitive, complex, and cumbersome Lack of consistency in format, approach Lack of a coherent story with a logical progression Too much focus on legal “air-tight” document versus writing for the public Too much focus on “the look” of the document vs. usability for decisions Lack of com

13、munication among multiple authors. 2006 by the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials.All rights reserved. Duplication is a violation of applicable law.2 This document is intended as a resource, not official guidance. It was developed by a group of experienced NEPA, trans

14、portation, and environmental professionals and represents the collective thinking of these individuals. 1.2 Why do we need to improve NEPA documents? NEPA requires agencies to disclose environmental impacts of their decisions in a way that is understandable to the public and to decision-makers. In t

15、he past few decades, NEPA documents have evolved into voluminous collections of data aimed at meeting increasing legal requirements. In many cases, these documents have become overwhelming and incomprehensible to the average citizen. Many EISs and EAs are not clearly written, are poorly organized, a

16、nd are presented in a format that is difficult to follow. This trend has occurred despite NEPA regulations and Federal agency guidance that provide adequate flexibility for documents to be written in a way that will more effectively communicate to the public. In fact, the regulations require clear,

17、understandable documents that “concentrate on the issues that are truly significant to the action in question, rather than amassing needless detail.”3AASHTO, ACEC, and FHWA practitioners identified a range of problems with NEPA documents; however, the top concern was the unwieldy size of the documen

18、ts, with respondents complaining that documents are too large, wordy, repetitive, complex, and cumbersome.4 It is not at all uncommon for EIS documents to approach 1,000 pages.5Other key concerns included poor writing quality and the need for better technical editing. Recent research has found that

19、“the length and complexity of environmental documents may deter some people from reading and comprehending them, which is antithetical to their very purpose.”6For example, a study by University of Illinois researchers found that the majority of citizens they tested showed no better understanding of

20、a project after they read the projects EIS document than they had before they read it.7State transportation officials point to a variety of circumstances that contribute to the growing size and complexity of environmental documents, including changing expectations from regulatory agencies, legal con

21、cerns related to court challenges, and information requests from the public or special interest groups. “We recognize that our environmental documents must continue to meet the needs of regulatory agencies and the attorneys that defend our projects, but they also need to meet the needs of the public

22、 that we serve,” WSDOT said 3CEQ Regulations, 40 C.F.R. 1500.1(b) 4Synthesis of Data Needs for EA and EIS DocumentationA Blueprint for NEPA Document Content, NCHRP Project 25-25(01), January 2005, Appendix C, p. A-5. 5Washington State Department of Transportation Reader-Friendly Document Tool Kit, p

23、. 2-2. 6Ibid., page 1 7Assessing the Impact of Environmental Impact Statements on Citizens, Environmental Impact Assessment Review, Vol. 16, No. 3, May 1996, pp. 171182. CEQRegulations for Implementing NEPA Agencies shall focus on significant environmental issues and alternatives and shall reduce pa

24、perwork and the accumulation of extraneous background data. Statements shall be concise, clear, and to the point, and shall be supported by evidence that the agency has made the necessary environmental analyses. 40 C.F.R. Sec. 1502.1 Purpose. 2006 by the American Association of State Highway and Tra

25、nsportation Officials.All rights reserved. Duplication is a violation of applicable law.3 NEPA procedures must insure that environmental information is available to public officials and citizens before decisions are made and before actions are taken. The information must be of high quality. Accurate

26、 scientific analysis, expert agency comments, and public scrutiny are essential to implementing NEPA. Most important, NEPA documents must concentrate on the issues that are truly significant to the action in question, rather than amassing needless detail. CEQ Regulations Sec. 1500.1(b) in its Reader

27、 Friendly Document Tool Kit. WSDOTs Tool Kit provides NEPA document writers with practical advice for achieving the states goals to produce “reader-friendly” environmental documents. And while most EISs and EAs will not require the drastically different approach taken for some recent environmental d

28、ocuments, numerous recent projects offer valuable lessons for developing environmental documents that are effective communication tools. Practitioners have noted the difficulties in balancing the need to ensure regulatory compliance with the need for clear writing and effective presentation of infor

29、mation. Not surprisingly, practitioners tend to err on the side of caution in applying new approaches.8But among these efforts, a key theme is emerging: quality NEPA documents must effectively “tell the project story” through clear, concise writing; effective organization and formatting; and effecti

30、ve use of visual elements. This report endorses these findings, stressing the need to tell the story of the projectbut also to tell the story of the process used to reach good decisions. 1.3 What is a quality NEPA document? The findings of the Task Team on Quality and Clarity of NEPA Documents embra

31、ced and expanded on findings and recommendations of National Cooperative Highway Research Program Project 25-25 (01), Synthesis of Data Needs for EA and EIS DocumentationA Blueprint for NEPA Document Content; Washington State DOTs Reader Friendly Document Tool Kit; Caltrans North and Central Regions

32、 Style Guide for Environmental Documents; and other resources and document examples discussed during the joint workshops. These efforts underscore a national trend focused on producing documents that better fulfill the spirit and the letter of the NEPA statute. Based on the recent body of research a

33、nd deliberations of transportation practitioners, the team identified the overarching principles essential to improving NEPA documents. Quality NEPA documents effectively “tell the project story” through clear, concise writing; effective organization and formatting; and effective use of visual eleme

34、nts. Documents must explain project decisions in simple, concise terms that are understandable to the public, while clearly demonstrating compliance with regulatory and legal requirements. The team recommends a basic framework applicable to most NEPA documents based on the “blueprint” presented in t

35、he NCHRP 25-25(01) project report. It also suggests procedural steps for successful document preparation and offers observations on use of specialized and advanced techniques. Aside from general recommendations in the blueprint and the legal sufficiency chapter, this report does not address specific

36、 aspects of the NEPA process, such as improving purpose and need statements, analysis of alternatives, and indirect and cumulative impacts analysis. 8Synthesis of Data Needs for EA and EIS Documentation, p. 2. 2006 by the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials.All rights

37、reserved. Duplication is a violation of applicable law.4 Ultimately, of course, it is not better documents but better decisions that count. NEPAs purpose is not to generate paperworkeven excellent paperworkbut to foster excellent action. CEQ Regulations 40 CFR Sec. 1500.1(c) Chapter 2 Core Principle

38、s for Improving the Quality of NEPA Documents 2.1 What are the core principles for quality NEPA documents? Based on the NCHRP research and deliberations of the joint AASHTO/ACEC/FHWA work group, the following “core principles” have received general consensus as the basis for quality NEPA documents:

39、Principle 1: Tell the story of the project so that the reader can easily understand the purpose and need for the project, how each alternative would meet the project goals, and the strengths and weaknesses associated with each alternative. Principle 2: Keep the document as brief as possible, using c

40、lear, concise writing; an easy-to-use format; effective graphics and visual elements; and discussion of issues and impacts in proportion to their significance. Principle 3: Ensure that the document meets all legal requirements in a way that is easy to follow for regulators and technical reviewers. P

41、ractitioners should note that effective use of the scoping process is integral to the successful implementation of these core principles. The scoping process involves inviting participation; coordinating with the public and agencies; determining the scope of the project and study area; identifying i

42、mportant issues versus minor issues; allocating assignments; and determining specific activities and their timing. Proper application and documentation of the scoping process can support the decision to limit the amount of detail that is included in NEPA documents. A well developed and documented sc

43、oping process can explain why particular issues were either highly developed or only minimally discussed in the document. In addition, the application of these core principles requires that the document be straightforward in presenting the facts as they are. Particular care should be taken to assure

44、 that the document is not an advocacy piece for the project or for any particular alternative. These principles, properly applied, are valuable tools for any environmental document and will go a long way toward achieving informed decisions that are understandable to the public. 2.2 How do you tell t

45、he story of the project? Effective NEPA documents provide a clear path of logic with a consistent theme or “thread” throughout the document based on what the project is trying to accomplish. EISs and EAs should provide the reader with a clear understanding of how decisions were reached and will be r

46、eached, answering key questions and discussing relevant findings related to each alternative. The “story of the project” should be understandable to a broad audience, serving the needs of public as well as document reviewers. Multiple technical Environmental impact statements shall be written in pla

47、in language and may use appropriate graphics so that decision-makers and the public can readily understand them CEQ Regulations, 40 CFR Sec. 1502.8 2006 by the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials.All rights reserved. Duplication is a violation of applicable law.5 subje

48、cts should be integrated based on the common question: what is the project trying to accomplish and what are its effects? The project purpose and need, alternatives analysis, and impacts should be clearly presented in plain language using effective visual elements. Document writers should focus on i

49、nformation that is relevant to the project decision, keeping the document as brief as possible. Washington States Reader Friendly Document Tool Kit illustrates how a traditional EIS could be reorganized to more clearly engage readers and tell the project story using a question-and-answer format.9Question-and-answer headings help direct readers to the information they are most interested in. They also give writers an opportunity to cover NEPA required topics (such as logical project termini) in a way that is more interesting to the reader. Examples of