Summary of the National Environmental Policy Act and Implementing Regulations - Environmental Impact Analysis: Process and Methods - page 26

As important as the environmental statement requirement is to the goals
of NEPA, there are exceptions. During the legislative debate over NEPA,
Senator Muskie from Maine insisted on an exception to the mandate for
environmental statements on certain regulatory actions designed to provide
environmental enhancement and protection (Andrews 1997). The exceptions
were proposed because they would slow down the implementation of the
intended environmental improvement and create no added value. Drafters
of the legislation agreed, recognizing the intent of the regulations was envi-
ronmental protection and thus exclusion of environmental regulation was
consistent with the evolving national environmental policy. They also recog-
nized the need for a significant and immediate action to protect the rapidly
diminishing value of threatened environmental resources such as air quality,
endangered species, water quality, and wetlands and did not want to delay or
compromise environmental protection legislation through the NEPA process.
Thus such regulations and other actions designed to protect environmen-
tal resources, which are now promulgated primarily by the U.S. EPA, are not
required to adhere to the procedural tenets of NEPA. However EPA has retained
muc h of t he i intent of NEPA as t hey promu lgate env i ron mental reg u lat ion s. T hei r
internal procedures mandate extensive public exposure and provisions for com-
ments on both draft and final regulations. Also as a practical matter, virtually
all EPA-proposed regulations are supported by the best available science and
reviewed by an independent congressionally established EPA Science Advisory
Board. Thus it meets the NEPA mandates of a “hard look,” public involvement,
and incorporation of environmental consideration in decision making.

2.2.5 NEPA Consultation and Public Disclosure

Although not as visible to the public as the detailed statement or EIS docu-
ment, another NEPA requirement has had as much or greater effect on federal
agency actions and environmental protection. NEPA requires in Section 102
C, “ Prior to making any detailed statement the responsible Federal official shall con-
sult with and obtain the comments of any federal agency which has jurisdiction by
law or special expertise with respect to any environmental impact involved ” [empha-
sis added]. Although the term “consult” did not convey veto power or even an
active role in the decision, there was an additional requirement as part of the
section: “ Copies of such statement and the comments and views of the appropriate
Federal State and Local agencies … shall be made available to the president, the CEQ,
and to the public .” This public disclosure requirement has forced the agency
proposing an action to take concerns and interests of other agencies seriously
and provide a public explanation if they chose to ignore the concerns. This
has imposed a high dose of common sense and objectivity to federal agency
decisions which potentially affect the environment.
During the mid-to-late twentieth century, the United States moved to a
government system dominated by agencies and bureaus. Each entity had its
own mission, and worked typically in close coordination and cooperation