Summary of the National Environmental Policy Act and Implementing Regulations - Environmental Impact Analysis: Process and Methods - page 27

with the constituents of the services or resources under the jurisdiction of
the agency. For example, the Federal Power Commission worked closely
with corporations generating electrical power and the Bureau of Land
Management had strong working relationships with ranchers who grazed
cattle on federal lands. Under this system of strong agencies and bureaus,
there was a tendency to focus very narrowly on the mission of the agency,
and even sometimes a relatively small subsection of the agency that listened
only to the users of the agencies' services and resources. This process tended
to limit adherence to the overall national agenda and the participation and
influence of other stakeholders, including other federal agencies.
NEPA changed this practice of governance with respect to environmental
issues and by extension to other actions and procedures by many agencies
and bureaus (Andrews 1997). The most immediate change caused by NEPA
in this regard was to mandate an internal review of an agency's actions. This
review forced examination by the highest levels of the agency and allowed
those in other subsections of the agency to express their opinion and an
opportunity to alter decisions made based solely on the narrow interests of
those directly involved with the action. NEPA also required coordination and
comments by other federal and state agencies with jurisdiction over environ-
mental resources that could potentially be affected by the agency's proposed
action. This provision further broadened the review of the action and consid-
eration of issues outside the direct mission of the proposing agency.
Perhaps the greatest change produced by NEPA in a governance system
heavily relying on agencies and bureaus was to require public disclosure.
This requirement subjected the officials responsible for decisions potentially
affecting the environment to public scrutiny. Thus, although NEPA did not
legislate against stupid or solely self-serving decisions, it did require officials
making such decisions to explain themselves, which resulted in better deci-
sions. This NEPA requirement was expanded in practice to include extensive
public input during scoping and review of draft and final EIA documents
which has also resulted in generally better projects and decisions. The public
exposure requirement also made the legal challenge to procedural require-
ments of NEPA possible. If all of the information related to actions, investiga-
tions, and considerations of a federal agency decision potentially affecting the
environment were not available to the public it would be very difficult, if not
impossible, to challenge in federal court the adherence to NEPA procedure
for any federal proposal or to critically examine adherence to the “hard look”
criterion established by the courts.

2.2.6 International Implementation of NEPA

There is another NEPA Section 102 requirement that has implications for envi-
ronmental impact analysis. Section 102 F states that the federal government
shall “ recognize the worldwide and long-range character of environmental problems and
where consistent with the foreign policy of the United States lend appropriate support