The Sustainability Imperative - Sustainable Design: The Science of Sustainability and Green Engineering - page 236

to acute diseases and increased mortality from inhalation hazards, the “death” of
the Erie Canal, and rivers catching on fire in Ohio and Oregon.
The environmental movement was institutionalized in the United States by
a series of new laws and legislative amendments. The National Environmental
Policy Act (NEPA) was in many ways symbolic of the new federal commitment
to environmental stewardship. It was signed into law in 1970 after contentious
hearings in the U.S. Congress. NEPA was not really a technical law. It did two
main things: created the Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) and established
the Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) in the Office of the President. Of
the two, the EIS represented a sea change in how the federal government was to
conduct business. Agencies were required to prepare EISs on any major action
that they were considering that could “significantly” affect the quality of the
environment. From the outset, the agencies had to reconcile often-competing
values: their mission and the protection of the environment.
The CEQ was charged with developing guidance for all federal agencies on
NEPA compliance, especially when and how to prepare an EIS. The EIS process
combines scientific assessment with public review. The process is similar for most
federal agencies. The National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA)
decision flowchart is shown in Figure 6.3. Local and state governments have
adopted similar requirements for their projects (e.g., the North Carolina process
is shown in Table 6.3). Agencies often strive to receive a FONSI 29 (finding of
no significant impact), so that they may proceed unencumbered on a mission-
oriented project. 30 The Federal Highway Administration's FONSI process (see
Fig. 6.4) provides an example of the steps needed to obtain a FONSI for a project.
Whether a project either leads to a full EIS or a waiver through the FONSI
process, it will have to undergo an evaluation. This step is referred to as an
environmental assessment . An incomplete or inadequate assessment will lead to
delays and increases the chance of an unsuccessful project, so sound science and
community input are needed from the outset of the project design.
The final step in the federal process is the record of decision (ROD), which
describes the alternatives and the rationale for final selection of the best alternative.
It also summarizes the comments received during public reviews and how the
comments were addressed. Many states have adopted similar requirements for
their RODs.
The EIS documents were to provide full disclosure of actual or possible prob-
lems if a federal project is carried out. This was accomplished by looking at all
of the potential impacts to the environmental from any of the proposed alterna-
tives, and comparing those outcomes to a “no action” alternative. At first, many
agencies tried to demonstrate that their “business as usual” was in fact very en-
vironmentally sound. In other words, the environment would be better off with
the project than without it (action is better than no action). Too, often, however,
an EIS was written to justify the agency's mission-oriented project. One of the