Ingenuity-Summer-2017

Pond Ingenuity Summer 2017 13 A Department of Energy Report shows that a National Environmental Policy Act Environmental Impact Statement (NEPA EIS) can cost an average of $2.9 million. There is no question that it’s a constant balancing act. Pond’s environmental team keeps projects moving forward and assuring regulators that every compliance issue is being followed to the letter of the law. Pond has repeatedly proved its competence through its expansive experience on a broad range of projects – from roadways to runways to railways, from commercial buildings to military installations, from underground oil and gas pipelines to overhead utility power lines, from new construction to environmental restoration. State and federal regulations are a moving target and environmental protections will always ebb and flow. Although every client’s project is different, Pond’s approach is methodical and scientific. Pond initially looks at a desktop survey of the environmental resources across the project area. This may include a review of national wetland inventory and other maps from the US Fish and Wildlife Service and other state and federal agencies, for instance, to identify any on-site or adjacent waterways, forested lands and habitats for particular animal species. Pond gathers data so that before boots ever hit the ground, there is a comprehensive understanding and analysis of potential environmental impacts. Pond then shares the results with the design team and identifies needed permits. Environmental designs – erosion and sediment control plans – are common and will allow for project permitting within a reasonable time frame. Typically, corporate environmental staff is aware of such procedures, but oftentimes executive decision makers are not. Knowing what the environmental regulatory drivers and environmental effects are upfront; we can help clients understand the risks, the permits required and how it will affect the schedule. Pond is always looking for ways to minimize environmental impacts, so that before we approach the permitting agencies, we have a feasible, and oftentimes least environmentally damaging plan, making their jobs easier upon review. Pond can do the greatest good to steer the projects in the right direction when brought in early – preferably at project conception. This may help an unnecessary work stoppage once the project is underway. Permit requests submitted to the federal government can take a long time to get approved. For instance, obtaining permission for construction in a wetland could involve a 45-day approval process under the Clean Water Act or it could be as lengthy as a full year, and air and water permits with potentially major impacts can take multiple years to get permitted. Some projects requiring governmental approva l s a l so mandate pub l i c commentary, potentially causing major project delays. The most common mistake clients make is assuming a project will have no environmental impact. What appears to be a mere ditch or neglected clump of trees could well be part of a protected area. Another mistake is to create an adversarial relationship with regulators. A polite but persistent approach while maintaining honest and open communication builds mutual trust between a client’s project manager and regulator. When we look out over a wetland boundary, there are enough decisions to be made based over interpretations of data. We use the science, our judgment and the trust we’ve established with regulators and keep our clients compliant and their projects on schedule. By Stephen Bailey, PWS | Program Manager | Environmental Services The most common mistake clients make is assuming a project will have no environmental impact.