NEPA Process and Specific Requirements - Environmental Impact Analysis: Process and Methods - page 87

The guidance recognizes the varied nature of “typical” actions and impor-
tance of environmental setting in the process. The guidance encourages
agencies to take these into account in executing their CATEX procedures.
They recommend that an agency consider potential “extraordinary circum-
stances” that might apply to an act ion i in an at y pical sit uat ion or environ men-
tal settings that would otherwise be standard for the agency and previously
shown not to have an impact. When an action may fall into this category, the
agency should make a case-by-case determination whether it differs sub-
stantively from the actions considered when the CATEX list was developed
and if so an EA or EIS may be warranted. Several agencies establish criteria
in determine extraordinary circumstances such as the potential presence of
endangered species' habitat or hazardous materials.
The CEQ CATEX guidance also establishes proven and acceptable methods
for establishing an action on the CATEX list. Although an agency can use other
approaches specific to their circumstances in developing the list, the CEQ guid-
ance cites the four methods discussed below. The first method for qualifying
an action for the list is experience from previously implemented actions, which
is probably the most common method for listing an action. It can take the form
of a previous action that was the subject of an EA (any action requiring an
EIS would not qualify because of the uniqueness and potential for significant
impact) and FONSI. However the guidance specifies that a FONSI alone does
not qualify similar actions for the CATEX list, and there must be some form
of confirmation that the predictions of the EA and conclusions of the FONSI
were generally accurate and impacts did not occur. In the extreme case, con-
firmation would be a formal monitoring program, but for most actions more
casual observation and documentation would suffice. For example, if several
storm water control systems on an Air Force base had been proposed, an EA
was prepared, and FONSI issued, these activities could qualify for inclusion in
a CATEX list if the base civil engineer or environmental officer observed and
documented activities during construction and during a storm to confirm that
the EA predictions and FONSI were accurate. Even if no EA was prepared,
a similar informal monitoring and documentation of no impact for common
agency practices could qualify the action for the CATEX list.
An agency can also conduct impact demonstration projects to determine
eligibility for CATEX listing by the agency (second method identified in the
CATEX guidance). This process would be useful if an agency anticipates
several similar projects that are new to the agency and they target the first
one as the demonstration project. As described in the CEQ guidance, use
of this approach for CATEX listing consists of preparing an EA and FONSI;
implementing the action; and a subsequent evaluation of the environmental
effects in accordance with a predetermined monitoring plan. If a postimple-
mentation evaluation confirms the FONSI, such actions can be included on
the agency's CATEX list.
The third approach cited in the CEQ guidance to CATEX listing is
“Professional Staff and Expert Opinions, and Scientific Analyses.” This approach