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


  • No preview · Article · Jun 2016 · Environmental Practice
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Existing studies have demonstrated a lack of consensus on the relationships between what the public sees when viewing a river, the actual ecological quality of that river, and a perceived need for management measures for that river. More specifically, there is insufficient information available about public perceptions of high-quality rivers. Therefore, this study, conducted in North Carolina, assessed public perceptions of a high-quality river, including links between perceptions of how attractive or how natural the river appeared and perceptions of specific ecological conditions on the river. The study also assessed the public’s perceived need for flood protection or river rehabilitation. The study’s results show that public perception of the river studied is complex and, in some ways, aligns well with available monitoring data collected from that river, but simultaneously reflects the public’s lack of knowledge about what constitutes a high-quality river, which influenced a perceived need for flood control and rehabilitation. Environmental Practice 18: 1–9 (2016)
    No preview · Article · Jan 2016 · Environmental Practice

  • No preview · Article · Dec 2015 · Environmental Practice
  • [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)
    No preview · Article · Dec 2015 · Environmental Practice
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: The Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) and the Colorado Department of Transportation (CDOT) have used Every Day Counts tools and other strategies to accelerate the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) process for projects intended to relieve congestion and improve safety in the Twin Tunnels area of Colorado’s Interstate 70 (I-70) Mountain Corridor. These Tier 2 projects follow the I-70 Mountain Corridor Tier 1 Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement (PEIS). The Tier 2 Twin Tunnels projects incorporated tools from the FHWA Every Day Counts Shortening Project Delivery Toolkit, including the Planning and Environmental Linkages concept, legal sufficiency enhancements, and programmatic agreements; the Construction Manager/ General Contractor (CM/GC) alternative delivery method; and a unique stakeholder engagement approach. These tools were effective in reducing the Tier 2 NEPA process to half its normal duration, thereby accelerating overall project delivery. The Tier 2 process was easier to implement because of the scaffolding developed during the Tier 1 process. Establishing an early involvement agreement related to legal reviews allowed FHWA attorneys to work with the project team at early decision points. Using the CM/GC alternative delivery method allowed for early input from the contractor on the preliminary design, avoided the need for NEPA re-evaluations during the final design or construction process, and led to new ideas for avoiding or minimizing impacts to environmental resources. Early and continuous engagement with partner agencies and other stakeholders allowed for quick feedback and provided the necessary support to move the project forward quickly. Environmental Practice 17: 278–290 (2015)
    No preview · Article · Dec 2015 · Environmental Practice
  • [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)
    No preview · Article · Dec 2015 · Environmental Practice
  • [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)
    No preview · Article · Dec 2015 · Environmental Practice

  • No preview · Article · Dec 2015 · Environmental Practice
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Businesses ask for regulatory certainty and stability. Environmentalists want protections to stay in place without backsliding. The NEPA Rules were adopted with the vocal support of major environmental, business, labor, government and citizen organizations, as well as prominent scientists, planners, and academics. There are at least two very good reasons for not changing the NEPA Rules. Politically, as noted at the outset, the rules have been stable and generally accepted. People tend to forget that NEPA directly regulates federal agencies. Because NEPA applies when a federal agency is making a decision, the NEPA Rules are regulations that apply to the federal government, not to the private sector. They apply when a federal agency makes grants, issues permits, or enters into contracts with other entities, for example, whether public or private. Therefore, the rules indirectly affect nonfederal agencies and the private sector, and many agencies allow or require their grantees or permittees to prepare NEPA documents, which is a pretty direct effect.
    No preview · Article · Dec 2015 · Environmental Practice
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers’ Great Lakes and Mississippi River Interbasin Study , released in 2014, evaluates strategies to lessen the risk of Asian carp and other aquatic nuisance species transferring between these ecosystems. Due to the voluminous nature of the report and manner in which the results are presented, however, many important questions remain difficult to answer, such as: How do the costs of the different strategies differ; and How would the costs be distributed across various stakeholders? To help evaluate the results, this article uses the study’s many estimates, considerations of net present value, and other tools to show how the costs of the alternatives differ over a 50-year time period. This information can help inform policymakers about the best way to move forward with a cost-effective strategy to deal with aquatic nuisance species. Environmental Practice 17: 291–301 (2015)
    No preview · Article · Dec 2015 · Environmental Practice

  • No preview · Article · Dec 2015 · Environmental Practice
  • [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)
    No preview · Article · Dec 2015 · Environmental Practice
  • [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)
    No preview · Article · Dec 2015 · Environmental Practice

  • No preview · Article · Dec 2015 · Environmental Practice
  • [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)
    No preview · Article · Dec 2015 · Environmental Practice
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: The Chicago Region Environmental and Transportation Efficiency (CREATE) Program is a nationally prominent rail-infrastructure program. It is managed by the unique partnership of the United States Department of Transportation (DOT), the State of Illinois, the City of Chicago, Metra, Amtrak, Association of American Railroads, and six of the nation’s Class I freight railroads. The CREATE 75 th Street Corridor Improvement Project (CIP) received a National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) Record of Decision in September 2014. As a result of 75 th Street CIP and other completed preliminary engineering and project environmental reviews within the 70 rail-improvements program, CREATE has set a national-policy example with regard to mitigation under the environmental justice Executive Order (EO) 12898. This article provides some background on the CREATE Program and examines the development of the CREATE Environmental Justice Policy. It describes the impetus for creating the policy, namely noise impacts on low-income and minority populations resulting from the 75 th Street CIP and other CREATE Program rail projects. This article also discusses the extensive coordination among Federal and State agencies, among the public and private CREATE partners, and among Community Advisory Groups and residents, all of which led to the specific mitigations addressed in the CREATE environmental justice policy. The result of these encompassing efforts, led by Federal Highway Administration and the Illinois Department of Transportation’s Division of Public and Intermodal Transportation, is a precedent-setting framework for analyzing and, when necessary, mitigating the potential environmental justice impacts of the CREATE Program rail projects. The CREATE Environmental Justice Policy is precedent setting in a few ways: (a) it establishes policy where none currently exists and where existing highway-oriented policies do not seem appropriate or applicable; (b) it provides greater specificity with regard to what mitigation measures are “practicable” to address predicted noise impacts of CREATE Program rail projects on low-income and minority populations; (c) it clarifies the lead agencies’ intent to maintain the transportation linkage and focus when developing and evaluating practicable mitigation measures for other (i.e., non-noise) impacts; and (d) it helps assure the equity of the transportation investment by better balancing the distribution of burdens and benefits at the project level. This article identifies the steps, when considering disproportionately high and adverse impacts to low-income and/or minority populations, on how to evaluate other practicable mitigation measures with merit under EO 12898. This article also describes the lessons learned and the dialogue necessary to receive broad support from the CREATE partners for both needed rail improvements and additional mitigations to provide offsetting benefits and opportunities to enhance Chicago-area communities, neighborhoods, and residents’ quality of life. Environmental Practice 17: 256–269 (2015)
    No preview · Article · Dec 2015 · Environmental Practice

  • No preview · Article · Dec 2015 · Environmental Practice