Environmental Engineering Reference
In-Depth Information
the rule making was accompanied by an EIS, which in general concluded that
continuation of the historic DCR management practices would not result in
unacceptable environmental impacts, at least in the short term (i.e., approxi-
mately five years). This conclusion was based on a comprehensive collec-
tion of field data in geographic locations and on environmental resources
potentially impacted by historic practices and extensive laboratory analyses,
testing, and mathematical modeling to predict impacts (see Chapter 5 for a
discussion of how the affected environment [Section 5.2.6] was investigated
and impacts predicted [Section 5.3.1]). The combination of all investigations
and promugation of the EIS resulted in the issuance of an interim rule.
The 2008 EIS was definitive on the prediction of natural environmental
impacts and identified potential mitigating measures and alternatives that
would have a lesser environmental impact. However, the EIS and associated
economic studies could not make similar definitive statements regarding the
costs and economic impact to the shipping industry resulting from imple-
mentation of the mitigating measures and alternatives included in the origi-
nal EIS. The 2008 EIS was also less than definitive on the effectiveness and
implementability of some of the alternatives and mitigation measures. Thus,
an interim rule was issued, and as part of the ROD resulting from the EIS, the
USCG committed to the issuance of a final rule following additional study of
the effectiveness, implementability, and economic impacts of the mitigation
measures and certain DCR management alternatives.
Similar to the development of an interim rule, promulgation of the final rule
was a major federal action with potentially significant impacts, thus requir-
ing NEPA compliance and documentation. However, it had been previously
demonstrated that the historic practices did not result in any significant envi-
ronmental impact to any natural resources and that any alternatives consid-
ered for a final rule would not lessen the historic environmental restrictions;
therefore, there was no real potential for significant impacts to the natural
environment. If anything, the measures required of the shipping industry
for DCR management under a final rule would strengthen environmental
protection measures. Thus, from the standpoint of the natural environment,
an EIS was not necessary, and it might have be possible to issue a FONSI
based on the analysis done as part of the 2008 EIS. However, the economic
impacts on the shipping industry resulting from a final rule with more strin-
gent environmental protection requirements had not been fully analyzed,
and there was the potential for significant economic impacts.
Given this history, there were a number of NEPA compliance options
available to the USCG. They could promulgate a final DCR management rule
that was at least as environmentally friendly as historic practices and did not
necessitate expenditure by the shipping industry beyond current levels. This
would not have any significant or unknown impact, and reference to the
2008 EIS would satisfy NEPA compliance. However, it would leave open the
question of why the mitigation measures and alternatives with potentially
fewer impacts on the natural environment identified as part of the 2008 EIS
Search WWH ::
Custom Search