Environmental Compliance

Environmental Impact Statements

An environmental impact statement (EIS) is a detailed statement that must be included in every recommendation or report on proposals for legislation and other major Federal actions significantly affecting the quality of the human environment (42 U.S.C. 4332). The primary purpose of an EIS is to serve as an action-forcing device to insure that the policies and goals defined in the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) are infused into the ongoing programs and actions of the Federal government. Generally, EIS's are prepared when Federal agencies recognize that their actions have the potential for significant environmental effects (adverse or beneficial), or when an environmental assessment leads to a finding of potential significant impact.

The Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS) prepares EIS's for administrative proceedings that seek to establish on a broad scale significant impact-generating strategies, methods, or techniques (such as large-scale aerial pesticide applications) as the means of dealing with pervasive animal and plant health issues within its purview. This can include contingency or emergency strategies that are comprehensive in scope, or strategic or long-range plans that have potential for significant environmental impact. APHIS also prepares programmatic EIS's to examine APHIS strategies and options for dealing with issues that have important implications for the maintenance and enhancement of environmental quality.

The Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) NEPA Implementing Regulations provide extensive guidance on the purpose, content, characteristics, and procedures for EIS's. (Refer also to the APHIS NEPA Implementing Regulations for specific guidance on EIS's). EIS's must comply (unless there are compelling reasons otherwise) with a recommended format. They are to be concise and no longer than required to comply with the regulations, and analytic rather than encyclopedic in nature. Impacts must be discussed in proportion to their significance. The EIS must include the range of impacts to be considered by the decisionmaker. Agencies must not prejudice selections of alternatives before making a final decision, or use EIS's to justify decisions that have already been made. EIS's shall be prepared using an interdisciplinary approach and normally shall be less than 150 pages (or 300 pages for proposals with unusual scope or complexity) in length. They should
be written in plain language and may use appropriate graphics to enhance understanding by decisionmakers and the public. The guidance on EIS's is designed so as to maximize their value and service to the planning process.

The process by which EIS's are prepared, reviewed, and approved is complex, but is granted some latitude based on the exigencies of program service. A proposal first undergoes scoping to determine the principal issues to be considered within the EIS. Scoping is informal (usually internal) and formal (a refined public process may involve public meetings). A draft EIS is prepared and made available to the public. The public is notified of the availability of the draft through appropriate means, including a notice in the Federal Register, and is given an opportunity to comment on the draft. The agency then considers the comments, integrates any new information or analysis into the EIS, and prepares a final EIS. The public is notified of the availability of the final EIS, again through a Federal Register notice and appropriate means. No decision on the proposed action can take place until the later of the following dates: 90 days after publication of the notice of the draft EIS or 30 days after the notice of publication of a final EIS. (Agencies with formal appeal processes may make and record a decision at the same time a final EIS is published, if they justify the timing and offer a real opportunity to alter the decision.)

In general, successful legal challenges to APHIS proposals have been based principally on Agency noncompliance with required procedures (especially NEPA and the Endangered Species Act procedures), and secondarily on substantive evidence of environmental impact. A challenge based on actual failure to provide the public with an opportunity to provide input into the decisionmaking process is probably the easiest way to halt a program for those who oppose its objectives or methods. EIS requirements (contextual and procedural) are well known to environmental activists and to the public, or soon become known when there is controversy over a proposed program.