Environmental Practice (Environ Pract)

Publisher: National Association of Environmental Professionals; Evergreen State College. Graduate Program in Environmental Studies; DePaul University. Dept. of Public Policy Studies, Cambridge University Press (CUP)

Journal description

Environmental Practice is the official journal and newsletter of the National Association of Environmental Professionals (NAEP). The central purpose of Environmental Practice is to provide an open forum to NAEP members and other concerned individuals for the discussion and analysis of significant environmental issues. Research articles and commentaries appearing in Environmental Practice are peer-reviewed and aim for the highest standards of professional quality.

Current impact factor: 0.00

Impact Factor Rankings

Additional details

5-year impact 0.00
Cited half-life 0.00
Immediacy index 0.00
Eigenfactor 0.00
Article influence 0.00
Website Environmental Practice website
ISSN 1466-0466
OCLC 42303867
Material type Periodical, Internet resource
Document type Journal / Magazine / Newspaper, Internet Resource

Publisher details

Cambridge University Press (CUP)

  • Pre-print
    • Author can archive a pre-print version
  • Post-print
    • Author can archive a post-print version
  • Conditions
    • Author's Pre-print on author's personal website, departmental website, social media websites, institutional repository, non-commercial subject-based repositories, such as PubMed Central, Europe PMC or arXiv
    • Author's post-print on author's personal website on acceptance of publication
    • Author's post-print on departmental website, institutional repository, non-commercial subject-based repositories, such as PubMed Central, Europe PMC or arXiv, after a 6 months embargo
    • Publisher's version/PDF cannot be used
    • Published abstract may be deposited
    • Pre-print to record acceptance for publication
    • Publisher copyright and source must be acknowledged
    • Must link to publisher version
    • Publisher last reviewed on 09/10/2014
    • This policy is an exception to the default policies of 'Cambridge University Press (CUP)'
  • Classification
    ​ green

Publications in this journal

  • Environmental Practice 12/2015; 16(04):335-340. DOI:10.1017/S1466046614000386
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Programmatic analyses under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) are broadly scoped for assessing the environmental impacts of federal actions across a span of conditions, such as facilities, geographic regions, or multiproject programs. Programmatic NEPA analysis can be an excellent decision-making tool that facilitates proactive and strategic considerations of environmental and other important criteria ahead of the need for site-specific or project-level action. Employing a programmatic approach can lead to more informed decision making and to streamlined processes for individual actions. This article showcases examples of effective programmatic NEPA analysis and explores the use of programmatic NEPA analysis as a tool for strategic analysis and decision making.Environmental Practice 16: 316–322 (2014)
    Environmental Practice 12/2015; 16(04):316-322. DOI:10.1017/S1466046614000337
  • Environmental Practice 12/2015; 16(04):349-358. DOI:10.1017/S1466046614000362
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: The smallest possible National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) document is one that cannot be made more streamlined. A NEPA document could not be more streamlined than to present eight elements of essential information as outlined in this article. Neither an environmental assessment nor an environmental impact statement would include a distinct, separate no-action alternative. Instead, today’s situation would be extended to the same point in the future, for purposes of comparison, as are the action alternatives. NEPA documents for projects would not develop alternatives to the proposal. Instead, NEPA documents would only develop alternatives that accomplish the same thing as intended by the proposed alternative. An environmental assessment would have no alternatives except for mitigating actions not already included in the proposed action. NEPA documents would not include exhaustive lists of possible environmental and other social and cultural consequences. Instead, relevance would determine which of these aspects are analyzed and compared (though under current NEPA regulations it seems that relevance determinations should be included in NEPA documents). Ultimate streamlining uses plain language. It meets all minimum legal requirements. It takes the fewest pages and should take the least time. It is the least amount of work that can produce the desired outcome.Environmental Practice 16: 309–315 (2014)
    Environmental Practice 12/2015; 16(04):309-315. DOI:10.1017/S1466046614000325
  • Environmental Practice 12/2015; 16(04):323-328. DOI:10.1017/S1466046614000374
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: This article analyzes the decision-making processes used by government agencies when trying to decide whether to approve or reject projects that impact the environment. This article examines some of the real-life inputs into the decision, as well as the influences on the decision maker. For example, some academics suggest that decision makers are more influenced by the environmental impact assessment process itself than by the conclusions of the assessment. Three case studies are presented. I provide an overview of each project and the various influences on the respective decision maker. I demonstrate that decision makers tend to elevate social, cultural, and political concerns over the natural environment. I also demonstrate that each decision maker was influenced by a particular social, cultural, or political aspect unique to each situation. I recommend further research in the expanding use of analytical tools and models in environmental decision making. These tools may encourage the decision maker to give more consideration to the results of the environmental impact assessment versus other external influences. Environmental Practice 16: 290–301 (2014)
    Environmental Practice 12/2015; 16(04):290-301. DOI:10.1017/S1466046614000295
  • Environmental Practice 12/2015; 16(04):359-363. DOI:10.1017/S1466046614000453
  • Environmental Practice 12/2015; 16(04):261-269. DOI:10.1017/S1466046614000428
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: The article offers an examination of recent efforts to streamline the NEPA process. Proposed streamlining methods are evaluated to answer whether streamlining initiatives would either improve NEPA or result in a cautionary tale of unintended consequences. Examples are given of commonly encountered sources of delay outside of NEPA that streamlining initiatives cannot address. The article concludes with a discussion of ways to reduce delay in NEPA review.Environmental Practice 16: 302–308 (2014)
    Environmental Practice 12/2015; 16(04):302-308. DOI:10.1017/S1466046614000313
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Precisely what is the relationship between the developing jurisprudence of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the most renowned “baby” NEPA? What is the societal and environmental value of the current legal structure of these two statutory behemoths both individually and conjunctionally considered? Endeavoring to answer these questions, this study analyzes all published opinions from the First, Ninth, and Eleventh United States Circuit Courts of Appeals during a fifteen year study period (1997 to 2012), where plaintiffs challenged the validity of a federal agency’s compliance with NEPA. It reveals not only that CEQA jurisprudence has strayed from that of NEPA, despite being modeled after it, but, even more astounding, that NEPA jurisprudence of the Ninth Circuit, the federal appellate court that includes California, is following CEQA’s blatant divergence from NEPA as practiced in the rest of the country, creating a fundamentally different version of NEPA applicable only to the Western states. The study concludes by calling on the Council on Environmental Quality to update its NEPA regulations to provide a more clear explanation of the statute’s mandates, including clear direction on how federal agencies should accomplish these mandates.Environmental Practice 16: 329–334 (2014)
    Environmental Practice 12/2015; 16(04):329-334. DOI:10.1017/S1466046614000398
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: In times of increasing workloads and flat budgets, it is important that the US Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) use available resources and techniques efficiently and effectively to achieve success in environmental reviews throughout the agency. By implementing a contract with Duke University, cosponsored by the Council on Environmental Quality, to present courses near the NRC Headquarters in the Implementation of National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), the NRC major program offices achieved success in training a large number of staff in NEPA in a timely and cost-effective manner. In addition, this training is positioning NRC staff to complete the Duke University graduate-level professional certificate in NEPA.Environmental Practice 16: 287–289(2014)
    Environmental Practice 12/2015; 16(04):287-289. DOI:10.1017/S1466046614000283
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: This study systematically examined environmental effects during and after Dez Dam Reservoir flushing operations. The study focused on potential upstream sources of pollution, sediment concentrations, water-quality parameters, and uses of water downstream of the dam, particularly emphasizing the presence of fish and macroinvertebrates as well as their habitats. The study was conducted from June 16–18, 2003 in the Dez Dam Reservoir, which is located in the southern part of Iran. The Dez Dam Reservoir is facing a serious sedimentation problem, and its dead volume will be quite full in the coming 10 years. Therefore, performing flushing operations through the three irrigation gates of the dam has received much more attention in recent years. The results of this study helped determine the hydraulic conditions that could decrease the negative environmental effects of the Dez Dam Reservoir flushing operations on downstream aquatic conditions.
    Environmental Practice 09/2015; 17(03):211-232. DOI:10.1017/S1466046615000198
  • Environmental Practice 06/2015; 17(02):87-88. DOI:10.1017/S1466046615000137
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Collaborative environmental governance scholars have increasingly recognized the need to engage Indigenous peoples in environmental decision-making processes. Barriers to doing so effectively are well known. Recognizing these barriers, some scholars have discussed recommendations from practice in regions where Indigenous lands have been colonized and where there are complex environmental problems. This article explores assumptions regarding Indigenous engagement in the practice of collaborative environmental governance and contextualizes these assumptions relative to the perspectives of Indigenous peoples. Concrete advice for environmental practitioners is offered that builds on findings from a previously published systematic review and empirical multi-case study of governance for water in British Columbia, Canada. Recommendations for practice offered here include the following: approach or involve Indigenous peoples as self-determining nations rather than as one of many collaborative stakeholders or participants; identify and engage with existing or intended environmental governance processes and assertions of self-determination by Indigenous nations; create opportunities for relationship building between Indigenous peoples and policy or governance practitioners; choose venues and processes of decision making that reflect Indigenous rather than Eurocentric venues and processes; provide resources to Indigenous nations to level the playing field in terms of capacity for collaboration or for policy reform decision making; and find ways to support Indigenous nations in their own continued environmental decision making and self-determination. Environmental Practice 00: 1–11 (2015)
    Environmental Practice 06/2015; 17(02):1-11. DOI:10.1017/S146604661500006X
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: The North Carolina Wetland Assessment Method (NC WAM) was developed from 2003 to 2007 by a team of federal and state agencies to rapidly assess the level of wetland function. NC WAM is a field method which is science-based, reproducible, rapid, and observational in nature used to determine the level of wetland function relative to reference for each of 16 North Carolina general wetland types. Three major functions (Hydrology, Water Quality, and Habitat) were recognized along with 10 sub-functions. Sub-functions and functions are evaluated using 22 field metrics on a field assessment form. Data are entered into a computer program to generate High, Medium, and Low ratings for each sub-function, function, and the overall assessment area based on an iterative Boolean logic process using 71 unique combinations. The method was field tested across the state at more than 280 sites of varying wetland quality. Examples are presented for the use of NC WAM for compensatory mitigation notably to calculate functional uplift from wetland enhancement. Calibration and verification analyses to date show that the results of the method are significantly correlated with long-term wetland monitoring data and NC WAM has been verified for one wetland type (headwater forest) using these data. Environmental Practice 17: 145–155 (2015)
    Environmental Practice 06/2015; 17(02):145-155. DOI:10.1017/S1466046615000046
  • Environmental Practice 06/2015; 17(02):85-86. DOI:10.1017/S1466046615000125
  • Environmental Practice 06/2015; 17(02):160. DOI:10.1017/S1466046615000101