This Site Selection Guide does not try to address the NEPA activities in great detail; GSA’s NEPA Desk Guide serves that purpose. The following discussion is provided as a summary of the NEPA process and related activities.

The analysis required by the NEPA is an excellent source of information for site selection and site design. The studies provide an understanding of the potential and constraints of the delineated area, as well as the preferred sites, to the Site Investigation Team and, later, to the Design Team.

The National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) of 1969
The NEPA requires analysis and a detailed statement of the environmental impact of any proposed federal action that significantly affects the quality of the human environment. The federal government is required to use all practicable means and measures to protect environmental values consistent with other essential considerations of national policy to avoid environmental degradation; preserve historic, cultural, and natural resources; and “promote the widest range of beneficial uses of the environment without undesirable and unintentional consequences.” Therefore, the NEPA makes environmental protection a part of the mandate of every federal agency and department.

Three Levels of Analysis
Based on the impact of the proposed actions, there are three levels of NEPA analysis:

• Categorical Exclusion (CATEX),
• Environmental Assessment (EA), and
• Environmental Impact Statement (EIS).

The Regional Environmental Quality Advisor (REQA) classifies the action with the Team Leader to develop an approach for the level of analysis for each Site Investigation Report. See Exhibit E.1: NEPA in a Nutshell (included from the GSA’s NEPA Desk Guide) for a summary of this assessment process.

Click to enlarge

Categorical Exclusion (CATEX)
An action that normally does not require the preparation of an EA or an EIS is called a Categorical Exclusion (CATEX). To qualify as a CATEX, the proposed action must not demonstrate any significant impacts on the environment. GSA uses two types of CATEX:

• The “Automatic” CATEX is a type of action that experience has shown never poses a significant impact on the quality of the human environment.
• The “Checklist” CATEX is a type of action that requires completion of a checklist to ensure that extraordinary circumstances do not exist.

More intrusive activities require additional NEPA analysis in the form of an EA or an EIS.

Environmental Assessment (EA)
An Environmental Assessment (EA) is a document that is prepared to determine whether an EIS is necessary. Although a specific format for an EA is not prescribed in the regulations, an EA should include discussions of the need for the proposed action; alternatives, including the proposed action; and a list of agencies and persons consulted. If an agency determines, through an EA, that the proposed action will not have a significant effect on the human environment, then it need not prepare an EIS, but must prepare a Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI).

Environmental Impact Statement (EIS)
An Environmental Impact Statement refers to a detailed written statement as required by Section 102(2)(c) of the National Environmental Policy Act, 42 U.S.C. §§ 4321 et. seq. An action requires an EIS when it is a major federal action with the potential for demonstrating a significant effect on the quality of the human environment. Agencies should focus on significant environmental issues and alternatives to the proposed action. Documentation for this level of analysis comprises a draft EIS and a final EIS, including responses to agency and public comments, and a Record of Decision (ROD), signed by the Regional Administrator, that describes GSA’s final action decision.

Scoping
Scoping means determining the scope or range of environmental analysis needed. Although scoping is discussed largely in the context of EIS preparation, there actually is a scoping element associated with any kind of NEPA analysis. Scoping is a key tool to help eliminate unimportant issues, focus the analysis on important issues, and prevent redundancy and excess bulk in documents. Scoping streamlines the NEPA process by limiting the range of analysis to only those issues that are significant. This tool also ensures that a full range of action alternatives is explored and that all potential impacts are identified at the beginning of the planning process.

There are two kinds of scoping: internal and external.

• GSA personnel and contractors carry out internal scoping within GSA. It may be the only kind of scoping done on a CATEX or a simple EA, or it may be used prior to and in conjunction with external scoping. Internal scoping includes interdisciplinary analysis, review of previous actions, and review of pertinent background data. The REQA always should be involved in internal scoping.
• External scoping is required by the Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) regulations. This aspect includes formal public involvement, discussions with consultants from agencies with jurisdiction by law or expertise, and publication of notices and draft documents. It is used to refine, adjust, or correct the issues identified by internal scoping

Public Participation
The level and kind of public involvement varies widely and depends on the nature of the action and the issues involved. It is important to remember that public involvement establishes ongoing dialogue with concerned members of the public, as feasible, to reach an agreement. Public involvement is appropriate in three phases of the NEPA process:

• During scoping;
• During the actual analysis of alternatives, the affected environment, and potential impacts; and
• During the review of results of analysis as recorded in CATEX Checklists, EAs, and EISs.

Back to top

Parallel Activities
There are two other categories of studies that may occur during the same time frame as the NEPA activities:

• An Environmental Site Assessment (ESA) is an evaluation of previous environmental conditions.
• Special studies, such as environmental, cultural, and social analysis, provide background for preparing NEPA documents and are interdisciplinary analysis.

The relevant information from these studies should be coordinated with the NEPA analysis. The studies themselves may be referenced or included in the appendix. Exhibit E.2 shows NEPA, Environmental Site Assessment, and special studies activities during site selection.

Environmental Site Assessment/CERCLA
The Environmental Site Assessment (ESA) that is performed for all GSA real property acquisitions is sometimes called a “due diligence process.” In general, this refers to being careful, or diligent, when taking on the responsibilities of real estate ownership. In particular, this refers to being careful that the property being acquired does not entail significant and insurmountable liabilities associated with the cleanup or management of past hazardous waste activities. The Environmental Site Assessment serves as a risk assessment and management tool for environmental liabilities associated with all GSA real estate acquisitions. It is a flexible process. A transaction screen is a commonly used tool for this assessment. The level of assessment will vary from one property to the next, depending upon the nature/type of property; historical use; type of transaction; proposed use of the property; and information obtained in the course of the assessment. Based on the information developed during the ESA, the transferor may be required to perform additional cleanup, or restrictions on the full use of the property may come to light. In addition, the assessment may reveal that the transferor must provide special assurances to GSA that the transferor will maintain any cleanup remedies in place (e.g., a cap on a landfill) and perform any additional cleanup required after transfer. Indeed, it is possible that the ESA may determine that a given site is a “No Go,” as discussed throughout this Guide, because of the unaddressed or unaddressable risks to human health and the environment posed by contamination at a given parcel.

Phase I
The purpose of a Phase I ESA is to identify the site’s recognized environmental conditions that resulted from past actions. However, these studies do provide background information for NEPA documents. Relevant information obtained as a result of Phase I or Phase II ESAs should be reviewed by GSA experts, summarized, and coordinated with NEPA documentation. Phases I and II ESAs can be included in the appendix of NEPA documentation or included by reference.

Phase I ESAs involve reviewing records; performing a site visit; and interviewing owners, occupants, and local government officials. A trained and experienced environmental professional must conduct this work. In addition, because a Phase I ESA includes reviews of local government files and interviews, adequate lead time is important.

Click to enlarge

Waiting until the last minute can hinder the quality of work performed and, thus, increase the risk of overlooking an important detail.

Phase II
If the Phase I ESA determines that hazardous substances may be present, then a Phase II ESA usually is conducted to confirm the presence or extent of contamination. This is accomplished by collecting and analyzing samples.

Phase III
The Phase III ESA finding concludes with a recommendation for site remediation necessary to mitigate the identified adverse environmental impacts. This finding includes available remedial options and their respective estimated costs. Phase III ESA remediation is performed after site acquisition. The level of remediation anticipated may be quantified to assist in evaluating alternatives or in negotiating the terms of the lease or site purchase.

Generally, a Phase III ESA is not incorporated into the NEPA analysis since it usually is not conducted until after the decision has been made and the site acquisition has been completed. When the current site owner or offeror agrees to complete the remediation, it generally would not be done until after the lease or purchase agreement has been signed.

Special Studies
Special studies include those environmental, cultural, social, and other types of analysis that may be necessary as part of the NEPA analysis planning process for a project. Decisions about the need for and kinds of special studies should be based on scoping. Begin performing any necessary special studies as early as possible in the course of EA or EIS analysis (and, when necessary, in the course of completing a CATEX Checklist). Special studies take time, and if a study begins too late, then it can hold up completion of both the NEPA review and the project schedule.

The following are some common types of studies needed for GSA NEPA analysis:

• Environmental Justice studies
• Social impact assessments
• Cultural resource studies/NHPA section 106
• Environmental due diligence reports
• Floodplain delineations
• Wetland delineations
• Air quality studies
• Water quality studies
• Natural resources studies
• Endangered species surveys

These studies provide the background for preparing NEPA documents (EAs and EISs), which form the basis for environmental decision-making. Special study reports are hardly ever suitable for inclusion “as is” in a NEPA document. In-house experts must review the reports and analyze and summarize the data, as appropriate. These reports often are appended to NEPA documents, or included by reference and made available for inspection by the interested public.

Special studies should not be performed in isolation from one another. Remember that NEPA requires interdisciplinary analysis, not merely multidisciplinary analysis. This means that the various disciplines, performing various studies, should interact with one another, share data, and cooperate in information gathering and analysis. This coordination can result in significant cost efficiencies because the same data or analytic method often may be useful to more than one study.

Cultural Resource Studies/NHPA Section 106
Many GSA projects require cultural resource or historic preservation studies. Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA) requires that GSA consider the effects of its undertakings on historic properties—defined as districts, sites, buildings (over 45 years old), structures, and objects included in or eligible for inclusion in the National Register of Historic Places (a list of significant historic properties maintained by the National Park Service)—and provide the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation (ACHP) with an opportunity to comment on those effects. Section 106 is a multiphase evaluation starting with general research and, potentially, resulting in full archaeological excavation and capture. The objective of Section 106 review is the mitigation of adverse effects on historic properties resulting from previous undertakings.

Actions considered an “undertaking” require a determination of the “area of potential effect” (APE). The APE is determined by conducting a Cultural Resource Assessment, in consultation with the State Historic Preservation Officer (SHPO) or Tribal Historic Preservation Officer (THPO), as appropriate. Once agreement is reached on the APE, a more detailed evaluation of the effect of the undertaking on historic properties within the APE is prepared, and the agency’s finding of effect is submitted for review. If GSA determines that there will be no adverse effect on historic properties, and if the SHPO or THPO concurs, then the agency has completed the review. If GSA determines that an undertaking will have an adverse effect on historic properties, then the agency works in consultation with the SHPO or THPO to resolve those effects (e.g., building demolition, disruption of an archaeological site) either through avoidance or mitigation.

Section 106 provides for the preparation of a Memorandum of Agreement (MOA), which stipulates how adverse effects are to be resolved. This document is signed by the agency as well as by the SHPO or THPO. If the agency and the SHPO or THPO cannot reach an agreement on a finding of adverse effect and its mitigation, then the matter can be referred to the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation for comment, or the site(s) can be deemed unacceptable.

References
“Appendix B: Major Federal Laws, Executive Orders, Regulations, and GSA Directives”

GSA Site Selection Guidebook 1: Acquisition of Real Property, “Appendix 1: Fact Sheet on Summaries of NEPA, Associated Laws, and Executive Orders”; “Appendix 2: Fact Sheet—Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA)”; “Appendix 3: Statutes, Regulations, and Administrative Directives That Influence and Control Site Selection”; “Appendix 4: List of Regional Environmental Specialists”; “Appendix 5: Examples of Site Selection Criteria”; “Appendix 7: Fact Sheet on E.O. 11988—Floodplain Management”; “Appendix 11: Fact Sheet—Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA)”; “Appendix 12: Fact Sheet—GSA Policy on Environmental Justice”; “Appendix 18: Specifications for GSA Site Investigation Report—GSA Form 1433”; “Appendix 19: Site Acquisition Time Line”; “Appendix 20: Utilities List Form”; “Appendix 21: Site Investigation—List of Items Needed”; “Appendix 22: Tabulation of Undesirable Characteristics”; “Appendix 23: Construction Management Site Data Inventory— GSA Form 1239”; “Appendix 24: Fact Sheet—Environmental Site Assessments (ESAs)”; “Appendix 25: Environmental Site Assessment Criteria”; “Appendix 26: Cultural Resource Assessment (Phase I) Requirements”; “Appendix 27: Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) Requirements”; “Appendix 28: Environmental Assessment (EA) Requirements”

U.S. General Services Administration, Public Buildings Service, October 1999, National Environmental Policy Act: NEPA Desk Guide; GSA NEPA PORTAL; National Historic Preservation Act 1966; U.S. General Services Administration. GSA Environmental Book; U.S. General Services Administration, Public Buildings Service, Historic Buildings Program, A Guide to Cultural Resource and Historic Preservation Information

Back to top