Origins and development - Introduction to Environmental Impact Assessment - page 37

compliance with these procedures is not enough, and that greater emphasis should be
given to the environmental goals and policies stated in §101. EIA must also be seen in the
light of other environmental legislation. In the USA, many laws dealing with specific
aspects of the environment were enacted or strengthened in the 1970s, including the
Clean Water Act and the Clean Air Act. These laws have in many ways superseded
NEPA's substantive requirements and have complemented and buttressed its procedural
requirements. Compliance with these laws does not necessarily imply compliance with
NEPA. However, the permit process associated with these other laws has become a
primary method for evaluating project impacts, reducing NEPA's importance except for
its occasional role as a focus of debate on major projects (Bear 1990).
The scope of EIA, and in particular the recognition of the social dimension of the
environment, has been another matter of concern. After long campaigning by black and
ethnic groups, particularly about inequalities in the distribution of hazardous waste
landfills and incinerators, a working group was set up within the Environmental
Protection Act (EPA) to make recommendations for dealing with environmental injustice
(Hall 1994). The outcome was the Clinton “Executive Order on Federal Actions to
Address Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations”
(White House 1994). Under this Order, each federal agency must analyse the
environmental effects, including human health, economic and social effects, of federal
actions, including effects on minority and low-income communities, when such analysis
is required under NEPA. Mitigation measures, wherever feasible, should also address the
significant and adverse environmental effects of federal actions on the same
communities. In addition, each federal agency must provide opportunities for
communities to contribute to the NEPA process, identifying potential effects and
mitigation measures in consultation with affected communities and improving the
accessibility of meetings and crucial documents.
Other issues remain, and Canter (1996) highlights four areas for which NEPA
requirements need further elaboration:
1. how much an agency should identify and plan mitigation before issuing an EIS;
2. ways to assess the cumulative impacts of proposed developments;
3. ways to conduct “reasonable foreseeability” (or worst-case) analyses; and
4. the monitoring and auditing of impact predictions.
2.2.5 Little NEPAs and the particular case of California
Many state-level EIA systems have been established in the USA in addition to NEPA.
Fifteen of the USA's states 4 have so-called “little NEPAs”, which require EIA for state
actions (actions that require state funding or permission) and/or projects in sensitive
areas. Other states 5 have no specific EIA regulations, but have EIA requirements in
addition to those of NEPA.
Of particular interest is the Californian system, established under the California
Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) of 1973, and subsequent amendments. This is widely
recognized as one of the most advanced EIA systems in the world. The legislation applies
not only to government actions but also to the activities of private parties that require the
approval of a government agency. It is not merely a procedural approach but one that
requires state and local agencies to protect the environment by adopting feasible