The BLM approval that SIRG longs are waiting for.
Environmental Assessment (EA)
An Environmental Assessment (EA) is an environmental analysis prepared pursuant to the National Environmental Policy Act to determine whether a federal action would significantly affect the environment and thus require a more detailed Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) . The certified release of an Environmental Assessment results in either a Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI) or an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) .
The Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ), which oversees the administration of NEPA, issued regulations for implementing the NEPA in 1979. Eccleston reports that the NEPA regulations barely mention preparation of EAs. This is because the EA was originally intended to be a simple document used in relatively rare instances where an agency was not sure if the potential significance of an action would be sufficient to trigger preparation of an EIS. But today, because EISs are so much longer and complicated to prepare, federal agencies are going to great effort to avoid preparing EISs by using EAs, even in cases where the use of EAs may be inappropriate. The ratio of EAs that are being issued compared to EISs is about 100 to 1. [ 30 ]
Likewise, even the preparation of an accurate Environmental Assessment (EA) is viewed today as an onerous burden by many entities responsible for the environmental review of a proposal. Federal agencies have responded by streamlining their regulations that implement NEPA environmental review, by defining categories of projects that by their well understood nature may be safely excluded from review under NEPA, and by drawing up lists of project types that have negligible material impact upon the environment and can thus be exempted.
[ edit ] Content
The Environmental Assessment is a concise public document prepared by the federal action agency that serves to:
- briefly provide sufficient evidence and analysis for determining whether to prepare an EIS or a Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI)
- Demonstrate compliance with the act when no EIS is required
- facilitate the preparation of a EIS when a FONSI cannot be demonstrated
The Environmental Assessment includes a brief discussion of the purpose and need of the proposal and of its alternatives as required by NEPA 102(2)(E), and of the human environmental impacts resulting from and occurring to the proposed actions and alternatives considered practicable, plus a listing of studies conducted and agencies and stakeholders consulted to reach these conclusions. The action agency must approve an EA before it is made available to the public. The EA is made public through notices of availability by local, state, or regional clearing houses, often triggered by the purchase of a public notice advertisement in a newspaper of general circulation in the proposed activity area.
[ edit ] Structure
The structure of a generic Environmental Assessment is as follows:
- Summary
- Introduction
- Background
- Purpose and Need for Action
- Proposed Action
- Decision Framework
- Public Involvement
- Issues
- Alternatives, including the Proposed Action
- Alternatives
- Mitigation Common to All Alternatives
- Comparison of Alternatives
- Environmental Consequences
- Consultation and Coordination
[ edit ] Procedure
The EA becomes a draft public document when notice of it is published, usually in a newspaper of general circulation in the area affected by the proposal. There is a 15 day review period required for an Environmental Assessment (30 days if exceptional circumstances) while the document is made available for public commentary, and a similar time for any objection to improper process. Commenting on the Draft EA is typically done in writing or email, submitted to the lead action agency as published in the notice of availability. An EA does not require a public hearing for verbal comments.
Following the mandated public comment period the lead action agency will respond to any comments received and certify either a FONSI or a Notice of Intent (NOI) to prepare a EIS in its public environmental review record. The preparation of an EIS then generates a similar but more lengthy, involved and expensive process.
At least SIRG is not being required to do an EIS which would take months longer. This is likely due to the fact that the mine is a pre-existing operation.
