3DESCRIBING THE AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT

Characterizing the affected environment ina NEPA analysis that addresses cumulativeeffects requires special attention to definingbaseline conditions. These baseline conditionsprovide the context for evaluating environ-mental consequences and should include histor-ical cumulative effects to the extent feasible.The description of the affected environmentrelies heavily on information obtained throughthe scoping process (Chapter 2) and shouldinclude all potentially affected resources, eco-systems, and human communities. Determin-ing the cumulative environmental consequencesbased on the baseline conditions will bediscussed in Chapter 4. The affected envir-onment section serves as a “bridge” between theidentification during scoping of cumulativeeffects that are likely to be important and theanalysis of the magnitude and significance ofthese cumulative effects. Specifically, describ-ing the environment potentially affected by

cumulative effects should include the followingStSp8:

Eizl

Eizl

Eiizl

Characterize the resources, eco-

systems, and human communities

identified during scoping in terms

of their response to change and

capacity to withstand stresses.

Characterize the stresses affecting

these resources, ecosystems, and

human communities and their

relation to regulatory thresholds.

Define a baseline condition for

the resources, ecosystems, and

human communities.

Describing the affected environment whenconsidering cumulative effects does not differgreatly horn describing the affected environ-ment as part of project-specific analyses; how-ever, analyses and supporting data should beextended in terms of geography, time, and thepotential for resource or system interactions. Inproject-specific NEPA analysis, the descriptionof the affected environment is based on a list ofresources that may be directly or indirectlyaffected by the proposed project. In cumulativeeffects analysis, the analyst must attempt toidenti& and characterize effects of other actionson these same resources. The affected envir-onment for a cumulative effects analysis,

23

therefore, may require wider geographic boun-daries and a broader time frame to considerthese actions (see the discussion on boundingcumulative effects analysis in Chapter 2).

COMPONENTS OF THE AFFECTEDENVIRONMENT

To address cumulative effects adequately,the description of the affected environmentshould

m

■

H

■

contain four types of information:

data on the status of important natural,cultural, social, or economic resourcesand systems;

data that characterize important envir-onmental or social stress factors;

a description of pertinent regulations,administrative standards, anddevelopment plans; and

data on environmental and socioeco-nomic trends.

The analyst should begin by evaluating theexisting resources likely to be cumulativelyaffected, including one or more of the following:soils, geology and geomorphology, climate andrainfall, vegetative cover, fish and wildlifewater quality and quantity, recreational uses,cultural resources, and human communitystructure within the area of expected projecteffects. The analyst should also review socialand economic data (including past and presentland uses) closely associated with the status ofthe resources, ecosystems, and human commun-ities of concern. The description of the affectedenvironment should focus on how the existingconditions of key resources, ecosystems, andhuman communities have been altered byhuman activities. This historical context shouldinclude important human stress factors andpertinent environmental regulations andstandards. Where possible, trends in thecondition of resources, ecosystems, and humancommunities should be identified. The

description of the affected environment will notonly provide the baseline needed to evaluateenvironmental consequences, but also it willhelp identify other actions contributing tocumulative effects. While describing the af-fected environment, the analyst should payspecial attention to common natural resourceand socioeconomic issues that arise as a resultof cumulative effects. The following listdescribes many issues but is by no meansexhaustive:

Air

■ Human health hazards and poor visi-bility from the cumulative effects ofemissions that lower ambient airquality by elevating levels of ozone,particulate, and other pollutants.

● Regional and global atmospheric altera-tions from cumulative additions of pol-lutants that contribute to globalwarming, acidic precipitation, andreduced ultraviolet radiation absorptionfollowing stratospheric ozone depletion.

surface water

Water quality degradation from mul-tiple point-source discharges.

Water quality degradation from landuses that result in nonpoint-sourcepollution within the watershed.

Sediment delivery to a stream orestuary from multiple sources of soilerosion caused by road construction,forestry practices, and agriculture.

Water shortages from unmanaged orunmonitored allocations of the watersupply that exceed the capacity of theresource.

Deterioration of recreational uses fromnonpoint-source pollution, competinguses for the water body, and over-crowding.

24

Ground Wafer

■ Water quality degradation fromnonpoint- and multiple-point sources ofpollution that infiltrate aquifers.

■ Aquifer depletion or salt water intrusionfollowing the overdraught of ground-water for numerous uncoordinated uses.

Lands and Soils

■ Diminished land fertility and produc-tivity through chemical leaching andsalinization resulting from nonsustain-able agricultural practices.

■ Soil loss from multiple, uncoordinatedactivities such as agriculture on exces-sive gradients, overharvesting in fores-try, and highway construction.

Wetlands

■ Habitat loss and diminished flood con-trol capacity resulting horn dredgingand filling individual tracts of wetlands.

■ Toxic sediment contamination and re-duced wetlands functioning resultingfrom irrigation and urban runoff.

Ecological Sysfems

● Habitat fragmentation from the cum-ulative effects of multiple land clearingactivities, including logging, agricul-ture, and urban development.

■ Degradation of sensitive ecosystems(e.g., old growth forests) from incre-mental stresses of resource extraction,recreation, and second-home develop-ment.

■ Loss of fish and wildlife populationsborn the creation of multiple barriers tomigration (e.g., dams and highways).

Hktork and Archaeological Resources

= Cultural site degradation resulting hornstreambank erosion, construction, plow-ing and land leveling, and vandalism.

■ Fragmentation of historic districts as aresult of uncoordinated developmentand poor zoning.

Socioeconom~cs

■ Over-burdened social services due tosudden, unplanned population changesas a secondary effect of multiple projectsand activities.

● Unstable labor markets resulting fromchanges in the pool of eligible workersduring “boom” and “bust” phases ofdevelopment.

Human Community Sfructure

■

■

■

Disruption of community mobility andaccess as a result of infrastructuredevelopment.

Change in community dynamics byincremental displacement of criticalcommunity members as part of un-planned commercial development pro-jects.

Loss of neighborhoods or communitycharacter, particularly those valued bylow-income and minority populations,through incremental development.

The cumulative effects analyst should deter-mine if the resources, ecosystems, and humancommunities identified during scoping includeall that could potentially be affected whencumulative effects are considered. This meansreviewing the list of selected resources in termsof their expanded geographic boundaries andtime ilames. It also requires evaluating thesystem interactions that may identify addi-tional resources subject to potential cumulativeeffects. If scoping addresses a limited set ofresources and fhils to consider those with whichthey interact, the analyst should evaluate theneed to consider additional resources. Theanalyst should return to the list of resourcesfrequently and be willing to modifi it asnecessary; furthermore, the analyst should beable to identifi and discuss conflicts between

25

the resources (such as competition for regulatedinstream flows between fishery interests andthe whitewater boating community).

Status of Resources, Ecosystems, andHuman Communities

Determining the status of the affected envir-onment depends on obtaining data about theresources, ecosystems, and human communitiesof concern. The availability of information con-tinues to vary, but the number of usefulindicators of ecological condition has increasedgreatly in recent years. In particular, indicatorsof the health or integrity of biological com-munities are in widespread use by waterresource management agencies (Sutherlandand Stribling 1995). The concept of “indices ofbiotic integrity” (Karr et al. 1986; Karr 1991) isa powerful tool for evaluating the cumulativeeffects on natural systems, because biologicalcommunities act as integrators of multiplestresses over time. By using biological indica-tors in conjunction with reference or minimallyaffected sites, investigators have described thebaseline conditions of entire regions. Thisapproach has been applied to many freshwaterand estuarine environments. Figure 3-1describes the status of benthic communities ofestuarine organisms in the Chesapeake Bay(Ranasinghe et al. 1994). This kind of infor-mation can be used to describe the baselineconditions at both the site and regional scales.

A second major innovation in indicators ofresource or ecosystem condition is the develop-ment of landscape metrics. The discipline oflandscape ecology recognizes that critical eco-logical processes such as habitat fragmentationrequire a set of indicators (e.g., habitat patternshape, dominance, connectivity, configuration)at the landscape scale (Forman and Godron1986; Risser et al. 1984). Investigators at theOak Ridge National Laboratory and elsewherehave developed several indicators that can beused in conjunction with remote sensing andGIS technologies to describe the environmentalbaseline for sites or regions (0’Neill et al. 1988,1994). The comprehensive spatial coverage and

multiple characterizations over time availablehorn remote sensing make linking these mea-sures to known environmental conditions one ofthe most promising approaches for assessingstatus and trends in resources and ecosystems.

BENTHIC ~.a ‘QsCOMMUNITY

*CONDITION ~~>

-=$gMIT.2

a!-%?k

ET-9it!i 2T.1O

w

$fj UNDEGRADED

B DEGRADED““’::$$~n

~ SEVERELV DEQRADED

C22.2

I E.c&7

Figure 3-1. Status of benthic communities as abaseline of ecological conditions in the Chesapeake

Bay (Ranasinghe et al. 1994)

Indicators have also been developed togauge the well-being of human communities.Concern about human health and environmen-tal conditions in minori~ and low-incomecommunities has resulted in directives andguidelines for addressing environmental juetice(see box). The structure, or societal setting, ofhuman communities ie analogous to the

26

structure of a natural ecosystem. Human com-munities are integrated entities with character-istic compositions, structures, and functioning.The community profile draws upon indicators ofthese aspects to describe the integrity of thecommunity (FHWA 1996). Community indica-tors can range from general variables such as“social service provision” to specific indicatorssuch as “distance to nearest hospital.” Indica-tors can also be composites of different factors.For example, the familiar “quality of life” indi-cator is an attempt to merge key economic,

EnvironmentalJustice

In 1994, PresidentClinton issued Executive

Order 12398, “Federal Actions to AddweEmitmmmtcJ kstke in Minority Populotkwand Low-{ ncorne Populations,* requiring

federal agencies to udopt strategies to uddras

envirortmentaf @ice concerns within the

context of ogertq operations. 10 an accom-

panying memorandum, the President

emphasizes that existing faws, including NEPA

provide opportunities for federal o~encies to

address this issue. The U.S. EPA has stated

that addressing environmental justice concern,

is entirely consistent with NEPA and that dis-

proportionately high and adverse human

health or environmental effects cm minority or

low-income populations should be analyzedwith the same tools currently intrinsic to the

NEPA process, Specifically, the analysis

should focus on smaller areas or communities

within the affected area to identify significant

effects that may otherwise have been diluted

by an examination of a larger population or

area. Oemogrcaphic,geographic, economic,

cmd human health and risk factors all con-

tribute to whether the populations of concern

face di$pmportionately high and adverse

effects. Public involvement is particularly

important for idenfifyhg the aspects of minor-

ity and low-income communities thot need to

be addressed. Early and sustained cammuni~

cations with the aff&ted community through-

out the NEPA process is an essential aspect of

environmental iustice.

cultural, and environmental factors into anoverall characterization of community well-being.

Characterization of Stress Factors

Environmental impact assessment is anattempt to characterize the relationship be-tween human activities and the resultantenvironmental and social effects; therefore, thenext step in describing the affected environmentis to compile data on stress fkctors pertaining toeach resource, ecosystem, and human commun-ity. Table 3-1 lists 26 activities (both existingand proposed), in addition to the proposedaction, that may cumulatively affect resourcesof concern for the Castle Mountain MiningProject (U.S. BLM 1990). For each activity inthis example, anticipated cumulative effects areidentified for each of 12 resource issues. Theprimary locations of expected effects are alsolisted. The analyst should use this kind ofstress information to summarize the overalladverse effect on the environment. Analo-gously, other activities that benefit the environ-ment (e.g., restoration projects) should be in-cluded to determine the overall net (adverse orbeneficial) effect on the environment. Whereactivities contributing to cumulative effects areless well defined, a general stress level can bedescribed. For instance, the affected environ-ment discussion need not address every farm inthe watershed, but it should note the presenceof substantial agricultural activity.

Two types of information should be used todescribe stress factors contributing to cumu-lative effects. First, the analyst should identi~the types, distribution, and intensity of keysocial and economic activities within the region.Data on these socioeconomic “driving variables”can identify cumulative effects problems in theproject area (McCabe et al. 1991). For example,population growth is strongly associated withhabitat loss. A federal proposal that would con-tribute to substantial population growth in aspecific region (e.g., a highway project travers-ing a remote area) should be viewed as a likelydriving variable for environmental effects.

27

Table 3-1. Other activities (existing and proposed) that may cumulatively affect resources ofconcern for the Castle Mountain Mining Proiect (U.S. BLM 1990)

AnticipatedEnvironmental

Primary ImpactDescription/Responsible Agency Status Issues That Could

Be CumulativeLocation

lhiliti&s/Semites

1 AT&T Communication cable upgrading (BLMN) E,P 4,1 Iv

2 PocBellmicrowave sites (BIA4N) E,P 4,1 Iv

3 Bio Gen power plant (SBC) E 2 Iv

4 Additional utility lines (1 -15 corridor) (BLMN) P 4,4 Iv

5 Whiskey Pete’s airslrip/waterline (BLMN) P 4 Iv

6 Salid woste landfill (UP Tracks near state line) (BLMN) P- 4,12 Iv

7—.-

Waste water ponds (Ivanpoh Lake) (BLMN)-– t— .–~––~ --— -

4,9 IV

i Nipton woste site (BIA4N) P 4,9 Iv

? IA-Los Vegas bullet train (BLMN) P – 4,9,10 &

Commercial and Residenficsl——

10 Nipton land exchonge (BLMN) P 4,6,12~~v—–—

11 Sccs~eredresidential units (BLMN) E,P - . . LV

?ecreaticm

12 Ivanpah Lake landsailing (BLMN) E 4,5,10 Iv

13 Borstow to Vegas ORV race (BLMN) E 4,5,10 Iv

14 East Molave Heritage Trail use (BLMN) E 4,5,10 I~L~ W

15 Molave Road use (BLMN) E 4,5,10 l~L~W –~ Clark Country Rood A6BP use (BLMS,CC) E 4,5,10 w

A4ining

17 Proposed Action/Alternative - precious metals (BLMN) I P 3,4,5,8,9 LV

~8 Calasseum Mine - preciaus metals (BIJAN) E 3,4,5,8,9 Iv

19 Caltrans borrow pits - aggregates (BLMN) E 4,5 Iv

20 Morning Star Mtne - preciaus metals (BLMN) E 3,4,5,8,9 Iv

21 Vanderbilt - precious metals mill site (BIMN) E 3,4,5,8,9 Iv

22 Golden Quail Mine - preciaus metals (BLMN) E 34589,,, , LV

23 Hart District Clay Pits (BLMN) E 4,9 LV

24 Mountain pass Mine - rare earth materials (BLMN) E 3,4,5,8,9 Iv.—25 Explorato~ activities (BLMN, BLMS) E,P 1, 4,5,9 L~W

&azing

?6 Grazing leases (BLMN, BLMS) E 4,5 Iyv, w

kurce of Inhrmatian Status IssuesN-MN: BLM Needles E: Existing

Location1 Earth

NA4S: BLM StatelinefW Piute Valley

P Propased 2 Air IV Ivan ah Valley;BC: San Bernardino County. Planning Department 3 Water FSC: Clark County, Planning Department

LW Lan air Valley4 Wildlife5 Vegetation6 Transportation7 Public Sewice/Utilities ,8 Health/Safety9 Visual Resaurces10 Recreation11 Cultural Resources12 Land Use

Second, the analyst should look for indi-vidual indicators of stress on specific resources,ecosystems, and human communities. Like thefamiliar “canary in the coal mine,” changes incertain resources can serve as an early warningof impending environmental or social degrada-tion (Reid et al. 1991). Indicators of environ-mental stress can be either exposure-oriented(e.g., contamination levels) or effects-oriented(e.g., loss or degradation of a fishery). High sed-iment loads and the loss of stable stream banksare both common indicators of cumulativeeffects from urbanization.

The goal of characterizing stresses is todetermine whether the resources, ecosystems,and human communities of concern are ap-proaching conditions where additional stresseswill have an important cumulative effect.Simple maps (Figure 3-2) of existing andplanned activities can indicate likely cumu-lative effects, as in the example of Seattle’sSouthwest Harbor (USACE et al. 1994).Regulatory, administrative, and planning inform-ation can also help define the condition of theregion and the development pressures occurringwithin it. Lastly, trends analysis of change inthe extent and magnitude of stresses is criticalfor projecting the future cumulative effect.

Regulations, Administrative Standards,and Regionai Plans

Government regulations and administrativestandards (e.g., air and water quality criteria)can play an important role in characterizing theregional landscape. They often influence devel-opmental activity and the resultant cumulativestress on resources, ecosystems, and humancommunities. They also shape the manner inwhich a project maybe operated, the amount ofair or water emissions that can be released, andthe limits on resource harvesting or extraction.For example, designation of a “Class I“ airquality area can restrict some types of devel-opment in a region because the Prevention ofSignificant Deterioration (PSD) requirementestablishes a threshold of cumulative air qual-ity degradation,

29

In the United States, agencies at manydifferent levels of government share respon-sibilities for resource use and environmentalprotection. In general, the federal governmentis charged with functions such as nationalstandard-setting, whereas state governmentsmanage implementation by issuing permits andmonitoring compliance with regulatory stan-

dards. Each of the states handles environ-mental regulation and resource management inits own way. Most states have chartered spe -cific agencies for environmental protection, re -source management, or both. This information,along with contact names, can be obtained fromthe Council of State Governments (Brown andMarshall 1993). States usually have discretionunder federal law to set standards more strin-gent than national ones. Land-use decisions areusually made by local governments. Local con-trol may take the form of authority to adoptcomprehensive land use plans; to enact zoningordinances and subdivision regulations; or torestrict shoreline, floodplain, and wetlanddevelopment. Data on local government issuesand programs can be obtained through relevantlocal government agencies.

The affected environment section of a NEPAanalysis should include as many regulations,criteria, and plans as are relevant to the cumu-lative effects problems at hand. Federal, state,and local resource and comprehensive plansguiding development activities should be re-viewed and, where relevant, used to completecharacterization of the affected environment.Agencies’ future actions and plans pertaining tothe identified resources of concern should be in-cluded if they are based on authorized plans orpermits issued by a federal, state, or other gov-ernmental agency; highly speculative actionsshould not be included. Agency or regionalplanning documents can provide the analystwith a reasonable projection of future activitiesand their modes of operation. How projecteffects fit within the goals of governmental reg-ulations and planning is an important measureof cumulative effects on the resources, ecosys-tems, and human communities of the region.

- Im+==f

M l?-]t —mm

u.

L– I I I

.-Ih

9NoTTascm

Figure 3-2. Regional map of proiects and activities contributing to cumulative effects in Seaitle’s Southwest Harbor

(USACE et al. 1994)

30

Trends

Cumulative effects occur through the ac-cumulation of effects over varying periods oftime. For this reason, an understanding of thehistorical context of effects is critical toassessing the direct, indirect, and cumulativeeffects of proposed actions. Trends data can beused in three ways: (1) to establish the baselinefor the affected environment more accurately(i.e., by incorporating variation overtime), (2) toevaluate the significance of effects relative tohistorical degradation (i.e., by helping to esti-mate how close the resource is to a threshold ofdegradation), and (3) to predict the effects of theaction (i.e., by using the model of cause andeffects established by past actions).

The ability to identify trends in conditionsof resources or in human activities depends onavailable data. Although data on existing con-ditions can sometimes be obtained for cumu-lative effects analysis, analysts can rarely goback in time to collect data (in some cases, lakesediment cores or archaeological excavationscan reconstruct relevant historical conditions).Improved technologies for cost-effectivelyaccessing and analyzing data that have beencollected in the recent past, however, have beendeveloped. Historical photographs and re-motely sensed satellite information can beefficiently analyzed on geographic informationsystems to reveal trends. The analyst may usethese tools to characterize the condition of aresource before contemporary human influ-ences, or the condition at the period whenresource degradation was first identified. Asshown in Figure 3-3, remote sensing imagerywas used to record the change in the conditionof the Jemez Mountains, New Mexico (Allen1994). The 1935 map (left) shows the location ofrailroads, dirt roads, and primitive roads in thelandscape surrounding the Bandelier NationalMonument. By 1981 (right) the increase inroads and the appearance of several townsitesis striking.

This 12-fold increase in total road length isan effective measure of cumulative environmen-tal degradation resulting from the accompany-ing fire suppression, motorized disturbance ofwildlife, creation of habitat edge in forestinteriors, and introduction of weedy speciesalong road corridors. The U.S. Forest Servicehas been using this landscape-scale GIS andremotely sensed information in planning effortsfor the Bandelier’s headwaters area to ensurethat desired forest conditions are maintained(e.g., area and distribution of old growth anddensities of snags).

OBTAINING DATA FOR CUMULATIVEEFFECTSANALYSIS

Obtaining information on cumulative effectsissues is often the biggest challenge for the ana-lyst. Gathering data can be expensive and timeconsuming. Analysts should identifj whichdata are needed for their specific purpose andwhich are readily available. In some cases,federal agencies or the project proponent willhave adequate data; in other cases, local orregional planning agencies may be the bestsource of information. Public involvement canoften direct the analyst to useful information or,itself, serve as an invaluable source of informa-tion, especially about the societal setting, whichis critical for evaluating effects on human com-munities. In any case, when information is notavailable from traditional sources, analystsmust be resourceful in seeking alternativesources. Table 3-2 lists some of the possibletypes and sources of information that maybe ofuse for cumulative effects analysis.

Although most information needed todescribe the affected environment must beobtained from regional and local sources, sev-eral national data centers are important.Census Bureau publications and statisticalabstracts are commonly used for addressingdemographic, housing, and general socioeco-nomic issues, as are several commercialbusiness databases. Currently, an extensiveinventory of environmental data coordinated by

31

The Nature Conservancy through state NaturalHeritage Programs (NHPs) and ConservationData Centers (CDCS) provides the mostcomprehensive information available about theabundance and distribution of rare species andcommunities (Jenkins 1988). NHPs and CDCSare continually updated, computer-assistedinventories of the biological and ecologicalfeatures (i.e., biodiversity elements) of theregion in which they are located. These datacenters are designed to assist in conservationplanning, natural resource management, andenvironmental impact assessment. Anotherpromising source of data is the U.S. Geological

by the consolidation of biological research,inventory and monitoring, and informationtransfer programs of seven Department ofInterior bureaus. The mission of the Division isto gather, analyze, and disseminate the biolog-ical information necessary to support soundmanagement of the nation’s resources. The U.S.Geological Survey itself was originally createdin response to the demands of industry andconservationists for accurate baseline data.Although substantial information can alreadybe obtained horn USGS, the implementation ofthe National Biodiversity Information Infra-structure (NAS 1993) may provide even greater

Survey’s Biological Resources Division, created access to comprehensive biological data,

“$.... ...”..... ............;

,..,’[ w.............. N

.,$. . . . f’::. ‘--......

o s 10

kilometers

1981

Figure 3-3. Remote sensing imagery illustrating the cumulative increase in roads between 1935 and 1981 across

the same 187,858 ha of the Jemez Mountains, New Mexico. The crosshatched line is a railroad; the solid lines

are dirt roads; the thin dashed lines are primitive roads’ and dotted lines show the current boundary of Bandelier

National Monument (Allen 1994),

32

Table 3-2. Possible sources of existing data for cumulative effects analysis

Individuals ■ former and present landholders● Iong-t[me residents■ Iong-t!me resource users● long-time resource managers

Historical societies Local, state, and regional societies provide:● personal Iournals■ photos■ newspapers■ indiwdual contacts

Schools and universities ■ central libraries■ natural history or cultural resources collections ar museums■ field stations■ faculty in hwtory and natural and social sciences

Other collections Private, city, state, or federal collections in :● archaeology■ botany~ zaolag

{“● natura history

Natural history suweys ■ private■ state■ national

Private organizations ■ land preservation■ habitat preservation■ conservation■ cultural resources history■ religious institutions■ chambers of cammerce■ volunta~ neighborhood organizations

Government agencies ■ local park districts .. local plannm~ag~cles■ local records- ee mg agencies■ state and federal and management agencies■ state and federal fish, wildlife, and conservation agencies■ state and federal regulatory agencies I■ state planmng a encles

Y■ state and federa records-keeping agencies■ state and federal suryeys■ state and federal agricultural. and forestry agencies■ state hlstorlc preservation offtces■ Indian tribal government planning, notural resource, and cultural resource affices

Proiect proponent ■ proiect dam and supporting environmental documentation

Although federal data sources are critical integration of data (Irwin and Rades 1992). Thefor compiling baseline data, they have sub- only comprehensive effort to develop estimatesstantial-limitations. For the most part, federalenvironmental data programs have evolved tosuppart a specific agency’s missions. They arenot designed to capture the interconnectionsamong environmental variables or generateinformation needed for analyses that cut across

sectorial and disciplinary lines. The fact thatfederal databases are often generated by moni-toring programs designed to track progress inmeeting regulatory goals further inhibits

of baseline ecological conditions across theUnited States has been the EnvironmentalMonitoring and Assessment Program (lMI.AP).EMAP has successfully developed indicators formany resources and has applied them inregional demonstration programs to providestatistically rigorous estimates of the conditionof ecosystems. Fully implemented, this pro-gram would be invaluable for analyzing cumu-lative effects (see box).

33

13diaillgmi$ii1ihi9 w&#ji@iliCmdithm mrcwgh WAP

Over fhe M decade, EPA has ied a rr@i@en~ effm-t to assess the Gonditkm of the rmfian’s

IWYA&Ul rewtirces {MWW et cd, 1991), Yh~:Envitonm@c+l A4tmitoringj tmd Asswsment Progmrn

(EJA@]’s goal is “to identify the extent.pn~ ~agriii~e of ~nvircmmemt~l prablaw cm re$icmal andnational scchs and fu pt’uvide infsrm&o that Wliimakem, @mtkts, and’fhepublicntiedfOtiluafethewccws of environmental policim and praqrams fl%ornfcm et cd<19%4], WAP hcwdevkkped Qscientifically rigorous monitoring deisiqn. @mrton et al. 195@) witldn which upproprikde Irtdicofms

(Burbw 19?4) canbe:scm#A trwovIds X* typtqof informotkmr+uirtid to oddress thesa questions.EMAP MM WMXISSMly~ld tastdmpny of the’hxlkatcws, samplin~protocols,and assessment methods

required to evaluate the ccqdtion of indh+idued tscek-agiccd msmJr@ ffmtien and Chrisfie 1993;

$ummem et al, 1993; V&dsb~ @ cd. 1993; “lmwis and Conklim 1994], Although intimates of the

ccmdition of certain resouwes have Wn **I+ for w%dn mgiom, EW “hasnot yet beenimpienmntd on a IQrge scale,

EMAP difbrs from ofher mafiitmin~ pro~roms in tlm following ways:

B WAP focuses on assessing. ecok@cxd condition by measuring biological indicators,8i010$ical indic@W’s

fRrmiichs irt~tatii rniwasure~ of respome to natural and

human-induced stress at cannq be obtained f~m frcdificmal chemical and physical.indicatum of, environmental strews W& w pcdfutanfs und Iw@iiat modification. Thepro ram maIntolM a core set of indhhr$ that arb in@6ir@ed natianaliy with uniform

Jm : cdolo~ and quality control,.

K IWAP wos q @@i@6fly ri~wws .som”li~ desiiqn, ~By measwinq indicators within u$network of prababMy scm@Qs rather m Jrom shs deck. using subjective criteria,

EAW produ- ~bid astimates of the status of utid chtm~es in indicators of ecologicalctmditicm wi~: known ew$idwws.

■ ~P takes an qcosystem+wianfed approach to,monitwitigby~ctmpli~ sewral ecologicalresources< EMAP meintai.ns.moti~ng db-ls .itt C@dtw’til kmd$, rungelands{ %rwsts,estuaries, and surface waf*rS, $.*.,. H@ss and sfreams], * alsa maintajns cross-cuttingocfivifies in ksndscape daracteiizatien, iridhtor d@opm@n$ cd atmospheric depodticm.

Them attributes m~ke EW wdquely sdtisd to uddnsssing cumukttlve effects. Where regional

estirnafes of ecol~iccd cotwlitian h~vet beitt de@aped, thqy tin be used os “baselirw condtiions forevaluating the effects of new p@scts. Afthbugh ~P moniforin~is ~uw9nt@limitedto a few regions

of#MJCQUntW4 the W cqqmach is MHQ a@id ta stafe monitoring “k+fkxtsthatw“IIestablish baseline

condfikm(m &wPwrlundandWei$be~ 1MM for opplicoticm to Marykmdstrenms),

AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT SUMMARY

The description of the affected environmenthelps the decisionmaker understand the cur-rent conditions and the historical context of theimportant resources, ecosystems, and humancommunities. The analyst uses this phase ofthe NEPA process to characterize the regionand determine the methodological complexityrequired to adequately address cumulative

effects. In describing the affected environment,the cumulative effects analyst should

identify common cumulative effectsissues within the region;

characterize the current status of theresources, ecosystems, and human com-munities identified during scoping;

identi& socioeconomic driving variablesand indicators of stress on these re-sources;

34

■ characterize the regional landscape in The affected environment section shouldterms of historical and planned devel- include data on resources, ecosystems, andopment and the constraints of govern- human communities; environmental and socio-mental regulations and standards; and economic stress factors; governmental regula-

■ define a baseline condition for the re- tions, standards, and plans; and environmental

sources using historical trends. and social trends. This information will providethe analyst with the baseline and historicalcontext needed to evaluate the environmentalconsequences of cumulative effects (Chapter 4).

35