ABSTRACT
Assessing signi™cance is often a formidable task of determining whether the action could result in a signi™cant environmental impact, a determination that would necessitate preparation of a much more rigorous EIS. The outcome of this determination can therefore have profound rami™cations in terms of cost, schedule, and potential litigation. Typically, agencies will informally evaluate signi™cance and proceed with preparing a written EA only if their initial evaluation suggests that potentially signi™cant environmental impacts are unlikely, i.e., that the action can qualify for a ™nding of no signi™cant impact (FONSI). Rarely do agencies publish EAs and then subsequently conclude that a FONSI is not possible and that an EIS is necessary. If initial analytical work on an EA indicates a likelihood of signi™cant environmental impacts, agencies usually decide to alter the proposed action to avoid or otherwise mitigate the signi™cant impacts or transform the in-progress EA document into an EIS (and perform the public noti™cation and scoping requisite to an EIS).
