October 2011 - Parks & Recreation - 51

By James C. kozlowski, J.d., Ph.d.

LAW RE VIE W

NEPA Challenge to
Park Sharpshooters
for Deer Control

i

n pERtinEnt paRt, the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), 42 USC

§ 4332, mandates that all federal agencies " utilize a systematic, interdisciplinary approach which will insure the integrated use of the natural and social
sciences and the environmental design arts in planning and in decisionmaking which
may have an impact on man's environment. "

In so doing, NEPA requires federal agencies to include in every recommendation or report on proposals for major federal actions significantly affecting the
quality of the human environment, a detailed statement, i.e., an environmental impact statement (EIS)
by the responsible official to include the following:

shuttERstock

(i) the environmental impact of the proposed
action,
(ii) any adverse environmental effects which
cannot be avoided should the proposal be
implemented,
(iii) alternatives to the proposed action,
(iv) the relationship between local short-term
uses of man's environment and the maintenance
and enhancement of long-term productivity, and
(v) any irreversible and irretrievable commitments of resources which would be involved in the
proposed action should it be implemented.

The National Environmental Policy Act of 1969
(NEPA) also established the Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ). In addition, the Environmental Quality Improvement Act of 1970 provided CEQ
with rulemaking authority to issue regulations which
establish procedures and provide direction to federal agencies to implement NEPA and ensure " environmental information is available to public officials
and citizens before decisions are made and before
actions are taken. "
In pertinent part, the stated policy of the CEQ regulations (40 CFR § 1500.2) requires federal agencies,
to the fullest extent possible, implement the following
policy and procedures:
Use the NEPA process to identify and assess the
reasonable alternatives to proposed actions that

will avoid or minimize adverse effects of these actions upon the quality of the human environment.
Use all practicable means, consistent with the requirements of the Act and other essential
considerations of national policy, to restore and enhance the quality of the human environment and
avoid or minimize any possible adverse effects of
their actions upon the quality of the human
environment.

In so doing, since it is limited to major federal actions significantly affecting the human environment,
a costly and time consuming EIS should be the exception rather than the rule.
CEQ regulations also allow federal agencies to
use " categorical exclusions " (CE) to " define categories of actions which do not individually or cumulatively have a significant effect on the human
environment and which are therefore exempt from
requirements to prepare an environmental impact
statement (§1508.4). " In addition, following an environmental review and issuing an assessment (EA),
the CEQ regulations also authorize federal agencies
to issue a " fi nding of no significant impact " (FONSI)
" when an action not otherwise excluded will not have
a significant effect on the human environment and is
therefore exempt from requirements to prepare an
environmental impact statement (§1508.13). " Accordingly, NEPA compliance for the vast majority of proposed federal actions is based on a CE or EA/FONSI,
rather than an EIS.
After preparing a draft environmental impact statement and before preparing a fi nal environmental impact statement, CEQ regulations (40
CFR §  1503.1) require federal agencies to invite

w w w . N R P A . O R G    O C T O B E R 2 0 1 1    Parks

& Recreation

49
October 2011 - Parks & Recreation

Table of Contents for the Digital Edition of October 2011 - Parks & Recreation
