NEPA Process and Specific Requirements - Environmental Impact Analysis: Process and Methods - page 58

If the answer is number 4, “definitely no significant impact,” the agency
has met their NEPA obligation and can proceed with the action. If one of the
other answers applies, there is a different course of action that must be fol-
lowed to achieve NEPA compliance. Each of these is discussed below.

3.1.2 Categorical Exclusion (CATEX) as Part of the NEPA Process

If the proposed action is a common occurrence in the agency's normal course
of doing business and fulfilling its mission, answer number 1 in the list likely
applies: “There may or may not be an impact but we have dealt with this type
of action numerous times.” If the environmental impacts have previously
been analyzed and found not to be significant, it can generally be categorically
excluded from action-specific environmental analysis. CEQ instituted this
procedure in an effort to streamline NEPA and focus environmental analysis
on actions that are unique and the agency proposing the action does not know
the likely consequences to the environment. The rationale is that the agen-
cies perform these actions frequently and fully understand the consequences.
Thus, if they decided to go forward they will incorporate the environmental
concerns in their decision and the intent of NEPA will be satisfied. This is
a major streamlining procedure and has been incorporated into many other
environmental laws, regulations, and programs. The concept is discussed in
detail in Section 3.6.

3.1.3 Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) and Record of Decision

3.1.3.1 Planning and Structuring the EIS

If the agency feels there is a strong likelihood of significant environmental
impact (affirmative answer to question number 2 in Section 3.1.1) both NEPA
and the implementing CEQ Regulations are quite clear that a “detailed state-
ment” or EIS must be prepared. To assist in addressing this key question,
ma ny agencies mai ntai n eit her for mal or i n for mal l lists of t he t y pes of act ion s,
or the environmental settings (e.g., wetland, endangered species habitat) that
generally require a comprehensive EIS. More often than not, they will err on
the side of preparing an EIS because if they turn out to be wrong, there can
be considerable backtracking to comply with NEPA and an associated loss of
time, agency energy, and resources. Once the decision to prepare an EIS has
been made by an agency, the wheels have started running for a process that
can take years, cost many millions of dollars, and if conducted consistently
with NEPA intent, will have a major influence on the agency's decision.
It has been said that an EIS is a legal document and not simply a report of
scientific and engineering evaluations. This is true, and in order to be success-
ful, an EIS must be capable of withstanding legal challenges (see Section 3.7
which explains the role of legal defensibility in the enforcement of NEPA).
But to successfully address the intent of NEPA, the document must: (1) inform