NEPA Process and Specific Requirements - Environmental Impact Analysis: Process and Methods - page 88

acknowledges that agency personnel who deal with agency actions on a day-
to-day basis can apply their technical knowledge and experience in a common
sense fashion and reasonably conclude that “when we have done this in the
past, it has had no unacceptable environmental consequences, so we can make
reasonable predictions about similar actions.” This provision also acknowledges
that scientific investigation of an action showing no impact can apply to a simi-
lar class of actions typically taken by an agency. The guidelines do recommend
that the qualifications of the expert and details of the scientific investigation sup-
porting the no-impact conclusion be documented and made part of the record.
The final method cited by CEQ guidance for CATEX listing is “Bench-
marking Public and Private Entities' Experiences.” Thus if another agency
(federal, state, or other) has qualified an action for their CATEX list, the
listing can be used by other agencies. CEQ points out that transfers from
another agency are not automatic, and the listing agency must consider and
document the similarity of their action to that of the original listing agency.
Each agency or other federal entity has developed a list of actions common
to executing their mission and fulfilling their responsibility that have been
shown to have no significant impact. In some cases, the actions were originally
the subject of an EA or even an EIS, and mitigating measures developed, per-
fected, and incorporated in the standard practice for implementing the mea-
sure. Thus the expected impacts, if any, are fully understood prior to a decision,
and a NEPA EA or EIS review of the same or very similar action would not
provide any additional information; and thus a CATEX is appropriate. In other
cases, the actions have been conducted by the agency so many times and no
adverse environmental impacts have been observed that a detailed NEPA
analysis is not necessary to understand environmental implications prior to
a decision and they can be CATEXed. Some federal entities, such as the U.S.
Navy, have included in their CATEX list conditions that must be met if no fur-
ther NEPA analysis is required (Table 3.3). Other agencies have just listed the
actions eligible but then specified that certain actions must be compared to a
check list and a CATEX determination be prepared before the action is eligible
to be CATEXed. The USCG has taken this approach (Table 3.4).
The concept of categorically excluding a routine action from a specific and
detailed environmental impact analysis is not unique to NEPA. As discussed
in Chapter 8, many international and individual states embrace this concept.
In many cases the jurisdiction of these entities is much more limited than
that covered by NEPA (i.e., the entire U.S. and many overseas actions) thus
a universal list of actions not warranting individual analysis is included in
the general environmental regulations of many entities. In some cases, the
approach goes beyond a binomial decision of an action requiring an indi-
vidual environmental analysis versus the action not requiring an individual
evaluation analysis. In these cases a hierarchical list is developed where
classes of actions are defined which require no environmental evaluation,
limited and well-defined level of analysis (similar to a NEPA EA), or compre-
hensive evaluation (similar to a NEPA EIS).