ABSTRACT
As emphasized throughout the book, an EA and ™nding of no signi™cant impact (FONSI) can usually be more dif™cult to defend than an EIS and Record of Decision (ROD), because the burden of proof is on the agency to demonstrate that signi™cant impacts would not result or that any such impacts can be mitigated. An EIS does not carry this burden of proof. For this reason, adversaries have increasingly focused efforts on challenging EAs, which are considered more vulnerable targets; agencies can defend against this strategy by devoting particular care to the preparation of their EAs and in exercising prudence in reaching a conclusion regarding signi™cance. Alternatively, adversaries may increase their odds of success by directing efforts at ¥awed or poorly prepared EAs and FONSIs. The need for good science and clear presentation are just as great for an EA as for an EIS, perhaps even more so. The EA and FONSI process, while always intended to provide simplify the documentation process for actions clearly lacking a potential for signi™cant environmental impacts,
were never intended as a mechanism for skirting the need for a hard look at-and public scrutiny of-actions that could have signi™cant environmental impacts.
