Cumulative Effects as a Decision‑Forcing Analysis: Lessons from Six U.S. Federal Infrastructure Projects

Cumulative Effects as a Decision‑Forcing Analysis: Lessons from Six U.S. Federal Infrastructure Projects | Research Square window.SnipcartSettings = { analytics: { enabled: false } }; (function() { var accessVector = localStorage.getItem('access_vector') || ''; window.dataLayer = window.dataLayer || []; if (accessVector) { window.dataLayer.push({ user: { profile: { profileInfo: { snid: accessVector } } } }); } })(); (function(w,d,s,l,i){w[l]=w[l]||[];w[l].push({'gtm.start':new Date().getTime(),event:'gtm.js'});var f=d.getElementsByTagName(s)[0],j=d.createElement(s),dl=l!='dataLayer'?'&l='+l:'';j.async=true;j.src='https://www.googletagmanager.com/gtm.js?id='+i+dl;f.parentNode.insertBefore(j,f);})(window,document,'script','dataLayer','GTM-K279D39R'); Browse Preprints In Review Journals COVID-19 Preprints AJE Video Bytes Research Tools Research Promotion AJE Professional Editing AJE Rubriq About Preprint Platform In Review Editorial Policies Our Team Advisory Board Help Center Sign In Submit a Preprint Cite Share Download PDF Research Article Cumulative Effects as a Decision‑Forcing Analysis: Lessons from Six U.S. Federal Infrastructure Projects Robert Paterson This is a preprint; it has not been peer reviewed by a journal. https://doi.org/ 10.21203/rs.3.rs-8883186/v1 This work is licensed under a CC BY 4.0 License Status: Under Review Version 1 posted 10 You are reading this latest preprint version Abstract Cumulative effects assessment (CEA) is widely recognized as both central to and persistently weak in environmental impact assessment, yet few studies test whether project outcomes would plausibly have differed without it. This article assembles counterfactual evidence for a defined class of U.S. federal actions—major, contested infrastructure and resource development projects where cumulative effects substantially exceed direct impacts—using six cases spanning 1962–2025. Employing a comparative retrospective design, the analysis triangulates regulatory precedents for comparable projects, documentary evidence from environmental impact statements, records of decision and court opinions, and post‑decision trajectories where harms emerged or were averted. It asks whether direct‑effects‑only analysis would have supported approval and whether CEA altered project trajectories by revealing system‑scale risks. In all six cases, direct effects resembled those of projects that received federal authorization. In five, CEA—addressing watershed‑scale contamination, induced development, lifecycle greenhouse gas emissions, or synergistic ecological change—provided the analytical basis for denial, cancellation, or substantial constraint; in the sixth, the absence of CEA allowed basin‑wide degradation that later required extremely costly restoration. Across cases, the strength of documentary links between CEA findings and altered outcomes ranges from explicit legal citations to strong inferential support. These findings indicate that for contested projects where cumulative effects substantially exceed direct impacts, CEA has functioned as a necessary, though not independently sufficient, analytical condition for constraining system‑scale harm, clarifying what is at stake when cumulative analysis is weakened or removed from environmental review. cumulative effects assessment environmental impact assessment NEPA regulatory retrenchment infrastructure projects environmental governance environmental law Introduction What is lost when cumulative effects are removed from environmental review? For decades, cumulative effects assessment has been widely recognized as one of the most important—and most challenging—elements of environmental assessment (CEQ, 1997; Rutherford et. al 2026; Roudgarmi, 2018). Cumulative effects arise where individually minor actions, operating across space, time, induced development pathways, or interacting stressors, combine to produce environmental change that cannot be understood by examining any single project in isolation. Recent regulatory changes have narrowed cumulative effects analysis in the US, making empirical examination of what is lost from environmental review increasingly urgent. The 2020 CEQ revisions removed cumulative effects definitions; the 2024 revisions upheld in the SCOTUS’ recent Seven County Infrastructure Coalition v. Eagle Coun ty permitted jurisdiction-bounded scoping; and in 2025, CEQ rescinded all NEPA regulations (CEQ, 2020, 2024, 2025; Seven County Infrastructure Coalition v. Eagle County, 2025). The 2025 Presidential override of a cumulative-effects-based project denial illustrates the practical consequences--jurisdiction-bounded analysis can facilitate statutory approval pathways that bypass NEPA findings (ACOE, 2025). This article tests a specific empirical proposition across six case studies of major federal actions spanning 1962–2025: that in contested projects where cumulative effects substantially exceed direct impacts, cumulative effects analysis—not analysis of direct effects—has functioned as a necessary analytical condition for preventing or constraining system level environmental harm (Karkkainen, 2002; Robertson v. Methow Valley Citizens Council, 1989). The counterfactual test is whether direct effects analysis alone would have supported project approval—a question answerable by comparison with analogous projects that received authorization under direct-effects frameworks. The 2025 reversal of a cumulative-effects-based project denial through statutory override---within months of CEQ's February 2025 rescission of all NEPA implementing regulations---illustrates both the decision-forcing potential of cumulative assessment and its institutional fragility in multi-pathway regulatory systems. Although these US CEA regulatory changes arise in the NEPA context, the underlying pressures reflect broader international patterns. Many environmental assessment systems worldwide are narrowing the functional reach of indirect- and cumulative-effects scrutiny through streamlining reforms—accelerated approval pathways, legislated exclusions, and jurisdiction-bounded scoping—often justified through “better regulation” and “red tape” reduction narratives (IAIA, 2025; Directive 2011/92/EU, as amended by Directive 2014/52/EU; European Commission, 2024). In the UK, Environmental Outcomes Reports have been consulted on as a proposed replacement framework for EIA/SEA (Fischer, 2022); in Canada, the Supreme Court’s Impact Assessment Act reference decision underscores constitutional limits that push assessment toward effects “within federal jurisdiction” foreclosing causally connected but nonfederal actions (traditionally covered in SEA)(Reference re Impact Assessment Act, 2023 SCC 23); comparable pressures are reflected in debates over Australia’s EPBC reform proposals and “streamlined” approval pathways (Environmental Defenders Office, 2025), as well as controversies surrounding India’s Draft EIA framework and the legality of post-facto environmental clearances ( Alembic Pharmaceuticals Ltd. v. Rohit Prajapati , 2020; Kohli & Menon, 2022). Beyond such incremental reforms, Brazil’s General Environmental Licensing Law (Law No. 15,190/2025) exemplifies sweeping changes reflective of the recent US CEA retrenchment, expanding self-declared licensing and exemptions (Fernandes et al., 2025). These international trajectories make it important to establish—using decision-outcome evidence rather than procedural checklists—what is actually lost when cumulative effects analysis is weakened or removed from environmental review. Background and Conceptual Framework US NEPA, Cumulative Impacts, and CEQ regulation From NEPA's enactment in 1969 until 2020, the Council on Environmental Quality's (CEQ) regulations defined "cumulative impact" as the impact on the environment resulting from the incremental impact of an action when added to other past, present and reasonably foreseeable future actions (40 C.F.R. § 1508.7 (1978); CEQ, 1978 ). This definition, read together with the requirement to consider "indirect" effects, anchored a practice in which agencies were expected to analyze not only immediate, project-level effects, but also how actions contributed to broader trends and system-level environmental changes (CEQ, 1997 ; CEQ, 2005 ; EPA, 1999 ). Cumulative impact analysis became a core expectation of environmental assessments (EA) and environmental impact statement (EIS) practice, even if implementation was uneven and frequently criticized in both scholarship and agency review guidance (Rutherford, et al., 2026 ; EPA, 1999 ; Gunn and Noble, 2011 ). In July 2020, CEQ deleted the explicit definitions of "direct," "indirect" and "cumulative" impacts and introduced a "reasonably close causal relationship" test, signaling that cumulative analysis was no longer a standardized requirement for NEPA related assessments (CEQ, 2020 ; Davies et al., 2021 ). The 2024 CEQ revisions, upheld in Seven County Infrastructure Coalition v. Eagle County , emphasized agency "jurisdictional authority" as a scoping boundary, further limiting cross-jurisdictional and system-scale analysis (CEQ, 2024 ; Seven County Infrastructure Coalition v. Eagle County , 2025; Harvard EELP, 2025). In February 2025, CEQ withdrew its government-wide NEPA implementing regulations, with the rescission effective April 11, 2025, citing recent court decisions concluding that CEQ lacked independent authority to promulgate binding, cross-agency NEPA rules. As a result, NEPA implementation shifted to agency-specific procedures rather than a uniform CEQ framework (CEQ, 2025 ; 90 Fed. Reg. 13,042 (Feb. 25, 2025))(see Table 1). This contrasts sharply with CEQ's 1997 handbook and EPA's 1999 guidance, which treated cumulative effects as essential to understanding how incremental actions contribute to broader environmental problems (CEQ, 1997 ; EPA, 1999 ). Table 1. Evolution of Cumulative Effects Definition in US NEPA Law and Guidance, 1969–2025 (INSERT HERE) Cumulative Effects Typology The typology of cumulative effects analyzed in this article—spatial, temporal, induced and synergistic—is consistent with prior NEPA guidance and with the broader cumulative effects assessment (CEA) literature (CEQ, 1997 ; EPA, 1999 ; Canter and Ross, 2010 ; Therivel and Ross, 2007 ). Spatial cumulative effects arise where impacts extend beyond the immediate project footprint across aquifers, watersheds, airsheds or regional ecosystems. Examples include aquifer contamination risks from the Cross Florida Barge Canal and watershed scale impacts of the proposed Pebble Mine on Bristol Bay salmon habitat (Noll and Tegeder, 2009 ; USACE, 2020; EPA, 2014). Temporal cumulative effects occur where impacts emerge or intensify over multi decadal time scales, as in the Kissimmee River channelization, where hydrological, ecological and water quality changes unfolded over several decades following construction (Koebel, 1995 ; SFWMD, 1997; Chen et al., 2016 ). Induced development and indirect effects refer to project enabled infrastructure, land use conversion or resource extraction that produces impacts far exceeding the direct footprint (CEQ, 1997 ; Gunn and Noble, 2011 ). The Everglades Jetport and Ambler Road exemplify induced development effects: in both cases, the primary infrastructure was designed to catalyze broader airport related development or mining district build out, with consequent changes in hydrology, habitat and socio-economic conditions (Leopold and Marshall, 1969 ; BLM, 2020; NRC, 2003). Synergistic ecosystem effects arise where multiple stressors interact such that their combined impact exceeds the sum of individual effects—such as the interaction of wetland loss, altered flow regimes and nutrient loading in the Kissimmee Basin, or the combined influence of copper contamination and climate stressors on salmonid populations in Bristol Bay (Toth, 1993 ; Koebel, 1995 ; McIntyre et al., 2008 ; EPA, 2014). These dimensions often intersect–major projects typically produce spatial and temporal cumulative effects while also enabling induced development and synergistic ecological changes (Canter and Ross, 2010 ; Roudgarmi, 2018 ). The typology is therefore used analytically rather than categorically, to clarify which dimensions were most salient in each case and how their analysis—or omission—shaped decision outcomes. Theoretical proposition The theoretical proposition analyzed in this article is that in major federal actions where cumulative effects substantially exceed direct effects in magnitude and consequence, cumulative effects analysis has functioned as a necessary analytical condition through which NEPA’s informational and decision-forcing functions have been realized ( Robertson v. Methow Valley Citizens Council , 1989; Karkkainen, 2002 ). NEPA itself is a procedural statute—it requires agencies to take a “hard look” at environmental consequences and to disclose them publicly, but does not mandate specific substantive outcomes ( Robertson v. Methow Valley Citizens Council , 1989). In practice, however, decisions about whether to approve, deny, or modify projects depend on which effects are analyzed and presented to decision makers and the public (Karkkainen, 2002 ; Jackson and Dunning, 1971 ). The most consequential environmental risks often do not arise at the construction site or within the project footprint, but emerge through induced development, incremental degradation of watersheds or airsheds, long-term accumulation of pollutants, or interactions among multiple stressors (Canter and Ross, 2010 ). When these cumulative dimensions are examined, questions of significance, alternatives, and mitigation often look fundamentally different; impacts that appear manageable at the project scale may prove consequential—or unacceptable—once their contribution to system-wide change is made explicit (CEQ, 1997 ; EPA, 1999 ; IAIA, 2025 ). Where cumulative effects are excluded or narrowly scoped, environmental review tends to collapse into a compliance exercise focused on project design features and narrow mitigation commitments (Canter and Ross, 2010 ; Gunn and Noble, 2011 ). The proposition is not framed as a universal law or a probabilistic statement about all federal actions. Rather, it is a theoretical claim about how cumulative effects analysis operates in a specific class of cases—major, contested federal actions with significant system scale environmental effects and robust documentary records. The six case studies are used to test whether a predicted pattern appears consistently across diverse institutional and ecological contexts. Specifically, the analysis examines whether, in these cases, (a) direct-effects-only analysis would have supported project approval, and (b) cumulative effects analysis, where undertaken, altered project trajectories by revealing impacts that could not plausibly be ignored—while acknowledging that political, economic, and institutional factors also contributed to outcomes and are not fully disentangled in this study. Methods Comparative retrospective case study design This study employs a comparative retrospective case study design to test whether a predicted pattern—cumulative effects analysis altering project outcomes—appears consistently across diverse contexts (Yin, 2018 ). The six cases are purposively selected to maximize variation in time period (1962–2025), agency (Corps, FAA, Interior, State, BLM), geography (Florida, Alaska, Gulf Coast), project type (canal, airport, river, mine, pipeline, road), and ecosystem, each involving substantial cumulative effects that exceed direct project impacts in magnitude or consequence. Table 2. Comparative case outcomes: role of cumulative effects analysis in six major federal decisions, 1962–2025. INSERT TABLE 2 HERE Three historical cases—the Cross Florida Barge Canal, the Everglades Jetport, and the Kissimmee River channelization—span the period immediately before and after NEPA's enactment, including proto-EIS analyses that influenced NEPA's drafting. Three contemporary cases—the Pebble Mine, Keystone XL Pipeline, and Ambler Road—represent NEPA practice under mature regulatory conditions. This temporal pairing provides two forms of robustness: contemporary cases permit real-time observation of how agencies framed cumulative effects in permitting decisions, while historical cases permit observation of longer-run trajectories, including restoration costs and ecological outcomes that validate (or refute) analytical claims made at authorization (Kissimmee) and institutional reversals where cumulative effects analysis halted in-progress projects (Cross Florida, Everglades). Following Yin's replication logic, five cases function as literal replications (examining whether cumulative effects analysis is associated with altered project trajectories), while Kissimmee serves as a theoretical replication (testing the expectation that where cumulative analysis is absent, system-scale harms unfold). The diversity of agencies, ecosystems, and regulatory contexts—spanning six decades and five federal departments—tests whether the predicted pattern holds despite substantial institutional and ecological variation (Seawright and Gerring, 2008 ). Counterfactual evidence and pattern matching For each case, the analysis asks whether direct-effects-only assessment would have supported project approval, and whether cumulative effects analysis altered that outcome. This study advances EIA effectiveness research by triangulating three forms of evidence: (i) Regulatory precedent comparison . Comparable federal approvals (Rosemont and Kensington mines for hardrock mining; Alberta Clipper and Flanagan South pipelines for oil transport; Dalton Highway and Red Dog road for Alaska industrial access) establish that projects with similar direct-impact magnitudes received authorization, demonstrating that direct effects alone would have supported approval (Federal Register, 2017 ; U.S. Department of State, 2009 ; USACE, 1982). (ii) Documentary analysis . EIS documents, Records of Decision, and judicial opinions showing how cumulative and system-scale analysis altered agency choices (USACE, 2020; EPA, 2023; BLM, 2024 ). (iii) Post-decision trajectories . Consequences when cumulative analysis was absent or discounted—directly observed where projects advanced prior to CEA (Cross Florida, Everglades, Kissimmee), and validated through restoration monitoring that reconstructed cumulative harms unfolding over decades (SFWMD, 1997; Chen et al., 2016 ). This triangulated approach moves beyond the typical "CEA language present" document metrics (typical of most CEA evaluations) (Cooper & Sheate, 2002 ) to evaluate whether CEA plausibly functioned as a critical decision-altering mechanism. Data sources Data sources include environmental impact statements and supporting technical reports, administrative records, court decisions, scientific and restoration literature, and secondary historical accounts. For the historical cases, subsequent scientific studies and restoration monitoring are used to validate or refute claims made in original analyses and to reconstruct the cumulative effects that were predicted or emerged over time (Koebel, 1995 ; SFWMD, 1997; Harvey et al., 2017 ). For the contemporary cases, the analysis focuses on how cumulative effects were treated in EIS documents, Records of Decision, and judicial opinions (USACE, 2020; U.S. Department of State, 2011 ; BLM, 2020). Limitations The study has several limitations intrinsic to retrospective case research and qualitative comparative analysis. First, there is selection bias–the cases are historically salient, contested and well documented, and thus not statistically representative of all federal actions (Seawright and Gerring, 2008 ). Second, multiple case designs preclude statistical generalization–the goal is to support or challenge a theoretical proposition through analytical generalization (Yin, 2003 , 2018 ). Third, reconstructing counterfactuals about what would have happened under direct effects only analysis involves interpretive judgement, albeit grounded in documented authorizations, initial EISs and permitting patterns for analogous projects (Noll and Tegeder, 2009 ; USACE, 2020; U.S. Department of State, 2011 ). Claims that direct effects were comparable to other approved projects are supported by specific regulatory precedents: the Rosemont and Kensington mines for hardrock mining (Federal Register, 2017 ; Coeur Alaska, 2009 ), the Alberta Clipper and Flanagan South pipelines for oil transport infrastructure (U.S. Department of State, 2009 ; USFWS, 2013), and the Dalton Highway and Red Dog road for remote Alaska industrial access (Alaska DOT, 2017; USACE, 1982). Where agencies' own scoping documents and alternatives analyses referenced these projects as precedents (BLM, 2018 ; U.S. Department of State, 2011 ), the comparative analysis is grounded in regulatory practice rather than interpretive inference. Finally, other factors—political coalitions, economic conditions, broader policy shifts—also shape outcomes and are not fully disentangled here (Karkkainen, 2004 ; Davies et al., 2021 ). The aim is therefore not to establish causal laws, but to assess whether the theoretically predicted pattern appears consistently enough across diverse contexts to warrant analytical generalization about the role of cumulative effects analysis in NEPA practice and outcomes (and under what conditions). Results: Comparative case studies Historical cases Cross Florida Barge Canal The Cross Florida Barge Canal was authorized by Congress in 1964 as a 107-mile navigation and flood control project connecting the Atlantic and Gulf coasts (USACE, 1977; Noll and Tegeder, 2010 ). Direct environmental effects—conversion of approximately 9,000 acres of wetlands, flooding of segments of the Ocklawaha River, and canal construction impacts—were recognized and assessed in conventional cost-benefit terms when Congress approved the project (USACE, 1976; Noll and Tegeder, 2009 ). On that basis, the project was deemed economically justified, and construction proceeded for more than five years before any formal environmental impact statement was prepared (USACE, 1977). Cumulative effects analysis emerged only after construction was underway. In 1969–1970, the Florida Defenders of the Environment and allied scientists prepared what amounted to a proto EIS, arguing that the canal would cut through confining layers of the Floridan Aquifer and create pathways for saltwater intrusion and chemical contamination of the aquifer, which supplied drinking water to the vast majority of Florida's population (Noll and Tegeder, 2009 ; FSU Libraries, 2015 ). This aquifer-scale risk operated at a spatial scale far beyond the canal corridor and dwarfed the direct footprint impacts. Subsequent hydrogeologic analyses by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and the U.S. Geological Survey confirmed the vulnerability of the Upper Floridan aquifer and the potential for irreversible degradation if confining units were breached (USACE, 1977; USGS, 2014). On 18 January 1971, President Nixon ordered a halt to construction, explaining that he was acting "to prevent potentially serious environmental damages" and noting the Council on Environmental Quality's recommendation to end the project (Nixon, 1971 ). The canal remains partially constructed but incomplete; Congress later deauthorized the project, and the right of way was converted into the Marjorie Harris Carr Cross Florida Greenway (Noll and Tegeder, 2009 ). Direct effects analysis alone had supported authorization and construction. Aquifer-scale cumulative effects analysis—undertaken late and largely outside the Corps—provided the documented analytical basis for the presidential decision to halt the project, as reflected in Nixon’s 1971 statement citing the Council on Environmental Quality’s recommendation. Everglades Jetport In the late 1960s, Miami Dade County, with the support of the Federal Aviation Administration and the State of Florida, proposed a large "jetport" facility in Big Cypress Swamp, approximately six miles north of Everglades National Park (Leopold and Marshall, 1969 ; NPS, 2025 ). The facility was envisioned as one of the world's largest airports, with multiple runways and extensive support infrastructure; direct impacts included conversion of roughly 39 square miles of wetlands for runways, terminals, roads and associated facilities (Leopold and Marshall, 1969 ; NPS, 2025 ). A one square mile training runway was completed in 1968–1969, demonstrating that direct site impacts were not, by themselves, sufficient to trigger political or regulatory rejection (NPS, 2025 ). In June 1969, Interior Secretary Walter Hickel convened a select committee and asked hydrologist Luna Leopold of the U.S. Geological Survey to direct an environmental assessment (Leopold and Marshall, 1969 ; NPS, 2025 ). The resulting report, Environmental Impact of the Big Cypress Swamp Jetport, argued that the principal environmental risk was not the airport footprint itself, but the induced urban and commercial development the airport would catalyze throughout Big Cypress and the Everglades hydrological system (Leopold and Marshall, 1969 ). Leopold concluded that development associated with the jetport would lead to land drainage and infrastructure construction in the Big Cypress Swamp "which will inexorably destroy the south Florida ecosystem and thus the Everglades National Park" (Leopold and Marshall, 1969 ; NPS, 2025 ). The analysis traced induced development along transportation corridors and through regional land use changes, highlighting cumulative hydrological and ecological effects that extended far beyond the project site. The Leopold report is widely regarded as a prototype for NEPA's environmental impact statement requirement and was cited in early discussions of NEPA's Section 102 duties (Jackson and Dunning, 1971 ; CEQ, 1997 ). Its release triggered a rapid reversal of political support—federal and state officials withdrew backing, and the commercial jetport was abandoned; only the training runway remained, later incorporated into Big Cypress National Preserve (Davis, 2009 ; NPS, 2025 ). Subsequent Everglades restoration science, including the Comprehensive Everglades Restoration Plan and the Western Everglades Restoration Project, has confirmed that Big Cypress and the Everglades form an integrated hydrological and ecological system and that alterations in Big Cypress can substantially affect downstream Everglades conditions (Harvey et al., 2017 ; USACE, 2024; Everglades Foundation, 2024 ). Cumulative induced development analysis, grounded in hydrological science, provided the central analytical basis for the reversal of political support—though conservation advocacy, media attention, and Interior Department politics also contributed to the rapid withdrawal of federal and state backing (Leopold and Marshall, 1969 ; Davis, 2009 ). Kissimmee River Channelization The Kissimmee River channelization, constructed between 1962 and 1971, provides a contrasting case in which cumulative effects analysis was not conducted prior to project completion. The project was authorized by the Flood Control Act of 1954 as part of the Central and Southern Florida Project and constructed based on a 1962 General Design Memorandum focused primarily on flood damage reduction (U.S. Congress, 1954 ; USACE, 1962; Koebel, 1995 ). The channelization converted a 103-mile meandering river with extensive floodplain wetlands into a 56-mile engineered canal (C-38), with the river floodplain system transformed into a series of deep impoundments and leveed reaches (Koebel, 1995 ; SFWMD, 1997). Direct impacts included excavation of the new canal channel and disposal of spoil material, leading to direct loss of an estimated 30,000 acres of riverine and floodplain habitat (Koebel, 1995 ; Toth, 1993 ). The project was justified through standard cost-benefit analysis focused on flood damage reduction and increased land availability for agriculture and urban development (Koebel, 1995 ). Even before construction began, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service recognized the project's potential for ecological damage and documented concerns about impacts on fish and wildlife resources in 1959 (USFWS, 1959; SFWMD, 1997). During construction, biologists and citizens observed deteriorating ecological conditions and warned of likely long-term effects, and a grassroots movement formed with the goal of restoring the river (Loftin et al., 1990 ; Koebel, 1995 ; SFWMD, 1997). Unlike the Cross Florida Canal and the Everglades Jetport, however, these warnings did not trigger a comprehensive environmental impact statement or an equivalent cumulative effects assessment; NEPA had not yet been enacted, and the project proceeded under a narrow, direct effects-oriented cost-benefit framework (Koebel, 1995 ; SFWMD, 1997). The cumulative effects that unfolded after completion were severe and basin-wide. Channelization drained an additional 20,000 acres of floodplain wetlands (over and above the initial 30,000 acre loss), extending far beyond the direct canal and spoil footprint, and facilitated extensive conversion of formerly inundated lands to cattle pasture and intensive agriculture (Koebel, 1995 ; SFWMD, 1997; SFWMD, 2024). Hydrological alteration and wetland loss contributed to a 90–92% decline in waterfowl, a 70–74% decline in bald eagle nesting, and a roughly 67% decline in wading birds, indicating widespread ecosystem degradation (Toth, 1993 ; Koebel, 1995 ; SFWMD, 1997). The channelized river also became a major source of nitrogen and phosphorus loading to Lake Okeechobee; studies in the 1990s estimated that approximately 25% of nitrogen and 20% of phosphorus entering the lake originated from the channelized Kissimmee and its drained floodplain, contributing to harmful algal blooms and water quality impairment (Toth, 1993 ; SFWMD, 1997). Beginning in the 1990s, a comprehensive restoration program sought to reverse these adverse effects by backfilling segments of the canal, re-establishing river meanders, and restoring floodplain inundation. The restoration, which required several decades and the acquisition of over 100,000 acres of land, cost on the order of US $ 1 billion, nearly thirty times the original construction cost (SFWMD, 2021; Audubon Florida, 2021 ). Pre-restoration baseline studies and subsequent monitoring provide detailed scientific documentation of the cumulative hydrological, ecological, and water quality impacts of the channelization, effectively reconstructing the cumulative effects analysis that was never performed prior to the project (SFWMD, 1997; Chen et al., 2016 ; Harvey et al., 2017 ). Contemporary Cases Pebble Mine The proposed Pebble Mine in southwest Alaska would be a large open pit copper-gold-molybdenum mine located at the headwaters of the Bristol Bay salmon fishery (USACE, 2020; EPA, 2014). Direct impacts analyzed in the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers' Clean Water Act section 404 permitting process included the loss of approximately 105 miles of streams and 2,231 acres of wetlands within the project footprint, along with construction of tailings storage facilities, a power plant, a port, and transportation corridors (USACE, 2020). These direct impacts, while substantial, are comparable in magnitude to other large hardrock mines that received federal approvals during the same period. The Rosemont Copper Mine in Arizona received a 2017 Record of Decision and Clean Water Act Section 404 permit based on compensatory mitigation, though both were later vacated on unrelated grounds (Federal Register, 2017 ). The Kensington Gold Mine in Alaska received Forest Service approval in 2004 and a Corps Section 404 permit in 2005 authorizing tailings placement, upheld by the Supreme Court in Coeur Alaska v. Southeast Alaska Conservation Council (2009). In both cases, agencies concluded that substantial direct impacts could proceed under existing frameworks if offset by compensatory mitigation, and did not treat cumulative watershed-scale risks as a basis for denial. The approval of these comparable mines under direct-effects frameworks establishes the counterfactual baseline: Pebble’s direct impacts alone would not have distinguished it from authorized projects. What distinguished the Pebble decision was cumulative watershed-scale analysis. In the Pebble case, however, cumulative watershed-scale effects were central to the environmental analysis. The US EPA's Bristol Bay Assessment and the Corps' Final EIS examined how mine-related contaminants, particularly copper, could be transported downstream, accumulate in sediments and biota, and affect salmon populations far beyond the immediate footprint (EPA, 2014; USACE, 2020). Fisheries science demonstrates that copper at sublethal concentrations impairs salmon olfaction, reducing homing ability and spawning success, and thereby producing population-level impacts even where acute toxicity thresholds are not exceeded (McIntyre et al., 2008 ). The Bristol Bay watershed supports one of the world's most productive wild salmon fisheries, and cumulative effects analysis highlighted the interaction between Pebble's potential contaminant releases, other regional stressors, and the long-term sustainability of the fishery (NRC, 2011; EPA, 2014). In November 2020, the Corps issued a Record of Decision denying the § 404 permit, finding unavoidable adverse impacts and that compensatory mitigation sufficient to offset cumulative watershed effects was not practicable in the Bristol Bay environment (USACE, 2020). The permit denial produced a practical "No Action" outcome—no federal authorization for the project. In January 2023, EPA issued a Final Determination under Clean Water Act Section 404(c), prohibiting the use of specified waters in the Bristol Bay watershed as disposal sites for dredged or fill material associated with mining the Pebble deposit (EPA, 2023). The 404(c) determination—grounded in the watershed-scale cumulative effects analysis documented in EPA's 2014 Bristol Bay Assessment—found that discharges would cause unacceptable adverse effects on salmon fishery areas, aquatic ecosystem diversity, and commercial and recreational fisheries, even after accounting for proposed mitigation (EPA, 2023). This determination remains the controlling legal barrier; unless withdrawn by EPA or invalidated by a court, the Pebble project as proposed in the EIS review remains blocked (EPA, 2023; USACE, 2024). Direct effects analysis at the mine site alone—focusing on the 2,231 acres of wetlands and 105 miles of streams within the project footprint—could plausibly have supported permit issuance, consistent with approvals of the Rosemont and Kensington mines based on compensatory mitigation frameworks (Federal Register, 2017 ; Coeur Alaska, 2009 ). It was the cumulative watershed perspective, examining copper bioaccumulation, salmon olfaction impairment, and long-term fishery sustainability across the Bristol Bay ecosystem, that provided the documented regulatory basis for both the Corps’ permit denial and EPA’s categorical prohibition. Keystone XL Pipeline The Keystone XL Pipeline proposal involved construction and operation of a 1,179-mile, 36-inch diameter pipeline to transport diluted bitumen from Alberta's oil sands to refineries and export facilities in the United States Gulf Coast region (U.S. Department of State, 2011 ). The 2011 Final Environmental Impact Statement prepared by the U.S. Department of State assessed direct impacts associated with constructing and operating the pipeline, which included temporary ground disturbance along a 110-foot-wide right-of-way, vegetation clearing, localized habitat fragmentation, and risk of spills at river crossings and pump stations (U.S. Department of State, 2011 ). These direct impacts were comparable to other large-diameter pipelines approved during the same period, including the Alberta Clipper (2009) and Flanagan South (2013), where agencies concluded direct impacts could be mitigated through standard practices (U.S. Department of State, 2009 ; USFWS, 2013). On that basis, the Department of State initially concluded that Keystone XL’s direct impacts would support approval (U.S. Department of State, 2011 ). On that direct-effects basis—comparable to the Alberta Clipper and Flanagan South approvals—the project would plausibly have proceeded. Litigation and subsequent supplemental reviews shifted the decision-relevant question from construction-phase impacts to cumulative lifecycle greenhouse gas emissions, a dimension on which Keystone XL could not be treated as equivalent to previously authorized pipelines. Plaintiffs argued, and the District of Montana agreed in part, that the Department had failed adequately to analyze GHG emissions associated with upstream oil sands extraction, pipeline operation, and downstream combustion of transported oil, and had not sufficiently considered the cumulative climate implications of Keystone XL together with other pipelines transporting Canadian crude such as the Alberta Clipper and the existing Keystone mainline ( Indigenous Environmental Network v. Department of State , 2018). Lifecycle assessments estimated the pipeline could enable extraction and combustion of oil sands crude producing 1.3 to 27.4 million metric tons of CO₂-equivalent annually, depending on assumptions about whether the pipeline would increase marginal oil sands production or merely displace other transport modes (U.S. Department of State, 2014 Supplemental EIS). The 2014 Supplemental EIS, prepared in response to the court remand, examined these cumulative climate effects in greater detail but concluded that because oil sands production would likely proceed even without Keystone XL—transported by rail or other pipelines—the project's contribution to incremental GHG emissions would be limited (U.S. Department of State, 2014 ). This conclusion remained contested, with EPA and other commenters arguing that the availability of pipeline capacity directly influenced oil sands extraction economics and that treating the pipeline as "transportation only" understated its cumulative climate contribution (EPA, 2014 Comments on SEIS). President Obama denied the permit in November 2015, citing climate policy considerations and the project's inconsistent contribution to U.S. energy security (White House, 2015). President Trump reinstated the permit in January 2017 through executive action (Trump, 2017), but the project was again blocked by court decisions in 2018 and 2020 requiring additional environmental review of cumulative climate impacts (Indigenous Environmental Network v. U.S. Department of State , 2018; Northern Plains Resource Council v . U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, 2020 ). President Biden revoked the permit on his first day in office, January 20, 2021, and the developer formally cancelled the project in June 2021 (Biden, 2021; TC Energy, 2021 ). Over more than a decade, successive approvals, denials, and remands turned on whether cumulative climate effects had been sufficiently considered, rather than on direct construction impacts (Davies et al., 2021 ). The protracted focus on cumulative lifecycle GHG emissions—which generated the court remands that legally blocked the project in 2018 and 2020—was a necessary factor distinguishing Keystone XL from hundreds of other pipelines approved under direct-effects analysis, though the ultimate project cancellation also reflected political cycling, organized opposition, and developer economics (Davies et al., 2021 ; National Academies of Sciences, 2018). Direct effects analysis alone had supported initial approval; cumulative climate effects analysis provided the legal and analytical basis on which the project was repeatedly blocked (through repeated court ordered SEIS requirements and executive branch vetoes), creating the conditions under which cancellation became the developer’s rational response. Ambler Road The proposed Ambler Mining District Industrial Access Road is a 211‑mile industrial corridor connecting the Dalton Highway to northwest Alaska’s Ambler Mining District, which contains extensive copper and associated deposits across more than 1,700 mining claims (BLM, 2020). BLM’s 2020 Final Environmental Impact Statement analyzed direct effects from clearing a roughly 60‑foot corridor, constructing stream crossings and bridges, developing material sites and quarries, and operating and maintaining the road, estimating disturbance of approximately 2,800 acres of tundra, taiga, and riparian vegetation, localized effects on fish habitat at crossings, and temporary air and noise impacts during construction (BLM, 2020). These direct impacts were comparable to other long‑distance industrial roads in Alaska, notably the 414‑mile Dalton Highway and the 52‑mile Red Dog Mine road, both approved under direct‑effects frameworks with standard mitigation; BLM’s 2018 scoping documents explicitly cited these as precedents (Alaska DOT, 2017; USACE, 1982; BLM, 2018 ). ​What distinguished Ambler was cumulative and induced development analysis extending far beyond the road corridor. The road was explicitly designed as enabling infrastructure for a multi‑mine district build‑out over several decades rather than as an endpoint, and the EIS examined cumulative effects on the Western Arctic Caribou Herd, induced mine and infrastructure development, secondary transportation corridors, and long‑term impacts on subsistence resources, traditional land use, and food security in Alaska Native communities (BLM, 2020). Tribes and environmental organizations characterized the project as the first step in a landscape‑scale transformation whose cumulative effects would dwarf the 2,800‑acre direct footprint (Trustees for Alaska, 2020 ; National Parks Conservation Association, 2020 ). ​BLM’s March 2020 Record of Decision approved a 50‑year right‑of‑way, following the Dalton/Red Dog precedent and treating direct construction and operational impacts as manageable with mitigation (BLM, 2020 ROD). In 2021, the U.S. District Court for the District of Alaska remanded the decision, holding that BLM had not adequately analyzed cumulative effects of reasonably foreseeable mining development, had failed to take a “hard look” at subsistence and environmental justice impacts, and had not considered a sufficient range of alternatives ( Sovereign Iñupiat for a Living Arctic v. BLM , 2021). After supplemental review, BLM issued a June 2024 Record of Decision denying the right‑of‑way, concluding that the road would cause “significant and unavoidable adverse impacts” to waters, fish and wildlife, subsistence uses, and environmental justice, and that there was no practicable alternative to these cumulative effects (BLM, 2024 ROD). ​In October 2025, however, President Trump issued a decision under ANILCA appeal provisions directing the Secretary of the Interior to approve the Ambler Road right‑of‑way and instructing BLM, NPS, and the Corps to reissue necessary permits to expedite construction; the state sponsor, AIDEA, announced that construction would begin in 2026 (Trump, 2025 ; The White House, 2025 ). The Ambler Road case thus demonstrates both the decision‑forcing potential of cumulative and induced‑development analysis—BLM’s 2024 denial rested explicitly on cumulative effects to caribou, subsistence, and environmental justice—and its institutional vulnerability, as ANILCA authority provided an alternative pathway that overrode NEPA‑based cumulative findings within months (Harvard EELP, 2025). Where Dalton and Red Dog were approved and operated based on direct‑effects analysis and standard mitigation, Ambler’s cumulative effects proved dispositive in judicial review and agency denial, only to be decoupled from authorization outcomes through statutory override. Pattern Across Six Cases The Pebble case further illustrates how cumulative effects analysis generated through NEPA processes can be translated into substantive statutory prohibitions. EPA's 2023 Section 404(c) determination, grounded in the 2014 Bristol Bay cumulative effects assessment, operates as a categorical barrier that extends beyond any single permit decision to prohibit an entire class of discharges in the Bristol Bay watershed (EPA, 2023). Section 404(c) is one of several mechanisms through which NEPA-generated cumulative effects analysis can trigger binding substantive consequences — others include Clean Water Act Section 401 water quality certification denials and Endangered Species Act jeopardy determinations — but each depends on substantive statutory authority that exists only in limited contexts and remains subject to legal challenge and potential regulatory rescission. The strength of documentary evidence linking cumulative effects analysis to altered outcomes varies across the six cases (Table 2). In four cases (Cross Florida, Pebble, Keystone XL remands, and Ambler), the decision document, court opinion, or regulatory determination explicitly cites cumulative effects findings as the regulatory or legal basis for denial, remand, or prohibition. In one case (Everglades Jetport), the documentary record strongly supports CEA’s causal role while acknowledging concurrent political and advocacy contributions. In the sixth (Kissimmee), the causal claim is inherently counterfactual. This variation in evidentiary strength is consistent with the study’s theoretical proposition: CEA functions as a necessary analytical condition within varied institutional and political contexts, but not as a single cause explanation. In three cases (Pebble, Everglades Jetport, Cross Florida Barge Canal), cumulative/system-scale framing coincides with high outcome leverage, suggesting that CEA is most decision-altering when it activates a hard constraint or alternative selection rather than incremental mitigation. Two cases (Keystone XL, Ambler Road) occupy a middle ground where system-scale impacts are salient but the decision signal is unstable, consistent with scope-bounded authority and political cycling. Finally, Kissimmee illustrates a “regret” pathway: system-scale harms manifest over time and produce delayed correction through restoration rather than contemporaneous decision change. Together, these patterns support the claim that CEA effectiveness is mediated less by analytic sophistication than by institutional coupling between system-scale knowledge and binding decision authority. Discussion Cumulative effects and substantive effectiveness The pattern across the six cases exemplifies what Morrison‑Saunders et al. (2014) describe as substantive effectiveness in environmental assessment: where cumulative effects analysis was undertaken at appropriate scales, it provided the documented analytical basis for shifting outcomes toward environmental protection, with evidentiary strength ranging from explicit legal and regulatory grounding to well‑supported counterfactual inference (Cashmore, 2004 ; Bond et al., 2013 ; Morrison‑Saunders et al., 2014). This is notable given the mixed conclusions in the EIA effectiveness literature about whether environmental review actually influences final decisions. The cases suggest that a key distinction lies in analytical scope: project‑proximate assessment tends to become a compliance exercise confirming predetermined decisions, whereas system‑scale analysis generates decision‑relevant information that is harder to ignore in public debate, judicial review, or administrative reasoning (Noble, 2015 ). Nelson and Shirley’s ( 2022 ) characterization of CEA as “transformational” rather than merely “technical‑rational” is borne out here—by connecting individual projects to broader environmental trajectories, cumulative analysis surfaces value‑laden questions about acceptable development pathways that project‑level assessment alone obscures.​ Unlike process‑quality evaluations that record whether cumulative effects language appears in EISs (Cooper and Sheate, 2002 ; Foley et al., 2017 ), this study uses counterfactual analysis to ask whether outcomes would plausibly have differed without CEA. Across the cases, direct‑effects analysis consistently resembled that of other authorized projects, while cumulative analysis revealed system‑scale risks—aquifer contamination, induced regional development, lifecycle greenhouse gas emissions, watershed bioaccumulation, basin‑wide ecological degradation—that proved disqualifying or trajectory‑altering. In this defined class of major, contested federal actions, CEA thus functioned as a necessary analytical condition for altered outcomes: the evidentiary basis without which decision trajectories would plausibly not have changed, even though CEA was never independently sufficient and always operated alongside political, economic, and institutional factors (Canter and Ross, 2010 ; Gunn and Noble, 2011 ).​ The cases further clarify when cumulative effects analysis shapes decisions and when it does not. Pebble Mine illustrates strong institutional coupling between cumulative analysis and substantive authority: EPA’s Section 404(c) determination directly translated watershed‑scale cumulative findings into categorical prohibition extending beyond any single permit (EPA, 2014, 2023). Comparable coupling can arise through Section 401 certification denials or ESA jeopardy determinations, which link NEPA‑generated CEA to binding statutory outcomes even though such mechanisms were not invoked in the other cases. By contrast, Ambler Road highlights CEA’s fragility when confined to NEPA’s procedural “hard look” framework: rigorous cumulative and induced‑development analysis supported BLM’s 2024 denial, yet Presidential action under ANILCA provided an alternative pathway that reinstated authorization (BLM, 2024 ROD; The White House 2026). The critical difference lies not in analytical quality but in institutional pathways—whether CEA findings are embedded in substantive decision authority or remain procedurally vulnerable to override—an aspect largely absent from CEA scholarship focused primarily on methodological adequacy (Noble, 2008 ; Gunn and Noble, 2011 ). Regulatory Retrenchment, Implementation Gaps, and System‑scale Risk The findings resonate with long‑standing international literature documenting that cumulative effects are poorly scoped and weakly operationalized across many jurisdictions (Cooper and Sheate, 2002 ; Duinker and Greig, 2006 ; Canter and Ross, 2010 ; Foley et al., 2017 ). What this study adds is decision‑outcome evidence that when cumulative analysis has been conducted at appropriate spatial, temporal, and induced‑development scales—as in the Cross Florida aquifer assessment, Leopold’s Everglades regional development analysis, EPA’s Bristol Bay watershed work, and BLM’s Ambler SEIS—it has functioned as the decisive mechanism constraining or denying projects. Conversely, where projects proceeded without systematic CEA, as in the Kissimmee River channelization, basin‑wide harms unfolded that later required long‑term restoration investments on the order of thirty times original construction cost (Chen et al., 2016 ; SFWMD, 2021). The implementation failures documented internationally (Sinclair et al., 2017 ; IAIA, 2025 ) therefore have concrete decision consequences: without robust CEA, the analytical capacity to distinguish locally manageable project‑scale impacts from system‑threatening trajectories is lost. The October 2025 Presidential approval of the Ambler Road right‑of‑way, following BLM’s 2024 denial grounded in cumulative effects and subsistence/environmental justice concerns, illustrates how this implementation gap interacts with institutional design in a post‑rescission environment (BLM, 2024 ROD; Trump, 2025 ; The White House 2025 ). Where NEPA‑based cumulative analysis constrains projects, alternative statutory pathways—here ANILCA appeals—can provide override mechanisms that reinstate approvals despite unresolved system‑scale risks, a pattern also visible in other domains where projects navigate multiple approval routes and express statutory exclusions (Ruhl and Salzman, 2010 ; Parenteau, 2015 ). The Ambler reversal occurred within months of CEQ’s 2025 rescission of all NEPA implementing regulations, which eliminated the formal requirement to analyze cumulative effects and endorsed jurisdiction‑bounded scoping (CEQ, 2025 ; Davies et al., 2021 ). Although the override was formally grounded in ANILCA rather than NEPA doctrine, the regulatory context matters: when cumulative analysis is no longer standardized, it becomes easier for agencies and decision‑makers to defend approvals that exclude system‑scale risks, and statutory override mechanisms face fewer procedural obstacles (Harvard EELP, 2025). From the standpoint of the case pattern documented here, Ambler thus encapsulates both CEA’s decision‑forcing potential—evident in the 2021 remand and 2024 denial—and its institutional fragility when not coupled to durable substantive authority (Karkkainen, 2002 , 2004 ). ​ Conclusion This study provides counterfactual evidence that cumulative effects analysis has functioned as a necessary analytical condition for constraining system‑scale environmental harm in a defined class of major, contested U.S. federal infrastructure and resource development projects. Across six cases spanning 1962–2025, direct effects were comparable to those of other projects that received authorization, while cumulative analysis—of aquifer contamination, induced regional development, lifecycle greenhouse gas emissions, watershed bioaccumulation, and basin‑wide ecological change—provided the basis for denial, cancellation, or substantial constraint. Documentary evidence linking CEA to altered outcomes ranges from explicit legal and regulatory citations (Cross Florida, Pebble, Keystone XL remands, Ambler) to strong inferential support alongside political dynamics (Everglades) and retrospective reconstruction of harms where CEA was absent (Kissimmee). These consistent patterns across six decades, five federal agencies, and diverse ecosystems underscore that cumulative effects analysis has been central, rather than peripheral, to the environmental protection actually achieved through NEPA practice in such high‑stakes decisions.​ The Ambler Road sequence crystallizes the contemporary stakes. BLM’s 2024 denial, grounded in systematic cumulative and induced‑development analysis of mining district build‑out, caribou migration, subsistence, and environmental justice, was overridden in 2025 through ANILCA authority within months of CEQ’s rescission of NEPA’s cumulative‑effects requirements (BLM, 2024 ROD; CEQ, 2025 ; Trump, 2025 ). Together with the 2020 and 2024 regulatory revisions and the Seven County decision’s jurisdiction‑bounded scoping logic, this creates a regulatory environment in which system‑scale risks may be identified analytically yet excluded from authorization decisions through jurisdictional segmentation, narrow causation tests, or alternative approval mechanisms (CEQ, 2020 , 2024 ; Seven County Infrastructure Coalition v. Eagle County , 2025; Davies et al., 2021 ; Harvard EELP, 2025). The U.S. experience documented here therefore illustrates not only CEA’s analytical power but also how institutional design can decouple robust analysis from binding outcomes.​ These findings have implications beyond the U.S. NEPA context. As Blakley and Russell ( 2019 ) note, the severity of many cumulative problems—climate change, collapsing fisheries, biodiversity decline—means that getting CEA “right, and fast” is critical. Yet jurisdictions worldwide confront similar pressures to streamline assessment by narrowing cumulative and indirect effects analysis, often justified by regulatory efficiency narratives (Sinclair et al., 2017 ; Fischer and Retief, 2022; Fernandes et al., 2025 ). Three implications follow from the six‑case record. First, the distinction between project‑level and system‑scale analysis is not merely methodological but outcome‑determinative: impacts that appear acceptable under direct‑effects frameworks can represent unacceptable system‑scale risks once cumulative trajectories are examined. Second, cumulative effects analysis exerts greatest decision‑forcing influence when integrated into substantive statutory authority—such as Clean Water Act Section 404(c) prohibitions, Section 401 water quality certifications, or ESA jeopardy determinations—rather than confined to procedural review that can be circumvented via alternative approval pathways (EPA, 2014, 2023; Ruhl and Salzman, 2010 ). Third, the Kissimmee River restoration, costing roughly thirty times original construction, exemplifies how analytical gaps translate into long‑term financial and ecological liabilities borne by future publics, even when restoration cannot fully re‑establish pre‑project conditions (SFWMD, 2021; Chen et al, 2016 ). For jurisdictions considering EIA “streamlining” or CEA retrenchment, the six decades of U.S. decisions analyzed here offer empirical grounding for caution. Removing or diluting cumulative effects analysis does more than simplify documents or shorten review timelines; it eliminates one of the few mechanisms by which large‑scale, long‑term environmental risks have been identified and constrained at legally consequential decision points. Declarations The author declares that they have no known competing financial or non‑financial interests that could have appeared to influence the work reported in this paper. Data sharing is not applicable to this article as no new datasets were generated or analyzed in this study. Author Contribution Robert Paterson conceived and designed the study, collected and analyzed the data, and wrote the manuscript. References Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation (2022) Red Dog Mine Site Information. Available at: https://dec.alaska.gov/spar/csp/sites/red-dog/ (Accessed: 19 January 2026). Alaska Department of Transportation & Public Facilities (2017) Dalton Highway History. Available at: https://dot.alaska.gov/highways/dalton/ (Accessed: 19 January 2026). Alembic Pharmaceuticals Ltd. v. Rohit Prajapati & Ors . (2020) 2020 SCC OnLine SC 347 (Supreme Court of India). Allen Matkins (2025) The CEQ Has No Clothes: The End of CEQ's NEPA Regulations and the Future of NEPA Practice. 21 February. Alyeska Pipeline Service Company (n.d.) The Dalton Highway / The Haul Road. Alyeska Pipeline Service Company, Anchorage, AK. https://alyeska-pipe.com/pipeline_facts/the-dalton-highway-the-haul-road/ . Accessed 14 Feb 2026. Audubon Florida (2021) Kissimmee River project—largest restoration initiative of its kind—complete after nearly 20 years. Tallahassee, FL: National Audubon Society, Florida Program. Blakley, J. and Russell, J. (2019) Trends, Issues and Insights in Cumulative Effects Assessment: A Review of International Academic Literature 2008–2018. Fargo, ND: International Association for Impact Assessment. BLM (2024) Ambler Mining District Industrial Access Project Record of Decision (Denial). Anchorage, AK: Bureau of Land Management, Alaska. June 2024. BLM (2018) Ambler Road Environmental Impact Statement: Scoping Summary Report. U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Anchorage, AK. https:// . Accessed 14 Feb 2026 Bond, A., Morrison-Saunders, A. and Howitt, R. (eds.) (2013) Sustainability Assessment: Pluralism, Practice and Progress. London: Routledge. Bureau of Land Management (2020) Final Environmental Impact Statement, Ambler Road Project. Anchorage, AK: U.S. Department of the Interior. Canter, L.W. and Ross, B. (2010) State of practice of cumulative effects assessment and management: the good, the bad and the ugly. Impact Assessment and Project Appraisal, 28(4), pp. 261–268. Cashmore, M. (2004) The role of science in environmental impact assessment: process and procedure versus purpose in the development of theory. Environmental Impact Assessment Review, 24(4), pp. 403–426. Cashmore, M., Gwilliam, R., Morgan, R., Cobb, D. and Bond, A. (2004) The interminable issue of effectiveness: substantive purposes, outcomes and research challenges in the advancement of environmental impact assessment theory. Impact Assessment and Project Appraisal, 22(4), pp. 295–310. CEQ (1978) Regulations for implementing the procedural provisions of the National Environmental Policy Act. 40 C.F.R. Parts 1500–1508. 43 Fed. Reg. 55978 (Nov. 29, 1978) Washington, DC: Council on Environmental Quality. CEQ (1997) Considering Cumulative Effects Under the National Environmental Policy Act. Washington, DC: Council on Environmental Quality. CEQ (2005) June 24, Guidance on the Consideration of Past Actions in Cumulative Effects Analysis. Washington, DC: Council on Environmental Quality. CEQ (2020) Update to the Regulations Implementing the Procedural Provisions of the National Environmental Policy Act. Federal Register, 85, pp. 43,304 – 43,376. CEQ (2024) National Environmental Policy Act Implementing Regulations Revisions. Washington, DC: Council on Environmental Quality. CEQ (2025) Removal of National Environmental Policy Act Implementing Regulations. Federal Register, 90, p. 13,042 (25 February). Chen, X., Wang, D., Tian, F., and Sivapalan, M. (2016). From channelization to restoration: Sociohydrologic modeling with changing community preferences in the Kissimmee River Basin, Florida. Water Resources Research, 52(2), 1227–1244. https://doi.org/10.1002/2015WR018194 Coeur Alaska, Inc. v. Southeast Alaska Conservation Council (2009) 557 U.S. 261. Cooper, L.M. and Sheate, W.R. (2002) Cumulative effects assessment: a review of UK environmental impact statements. Environmental Impact Assessment Review, 22(4), pp. 415–439. Davies, A., Zellmer, S. and Squillace, M. (2021) NEPA in the age of Trump: cumulative impacts, climate change, and the rule of law. Environmental Law Reporter, 51, pp. 10,245 – 10,262. Davis, J.E. (2009). An Everglades Providence: Marjory Stoneman Douglas and the American Environmental Century. Athens: University of Georgia Press. Directive 2011/92/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 December 2011 on the assessment of the effects of certain public and private projects on the environment (as amended by Directive 2014/52/EU). Official Journal of the European Union. Duinker, P.N. and Greig, L.A. (2006) The impotence of cumulative effects assessment in Canada: ailments and ideas for redeployment. Environmental Management, 37(2), pp. 153–161. Doi.org/0.1007/s00267-004-0240-5 EPA (1999) Consideration of Cumulative Impacts in EPA Review of NEPA Documents. Washington, DC: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Eitan, Avri and David Levi-Faur (2025) Environmental impact assessments as a mechanism of regulatory intermediation: the case of Israeli wind energy, Policy and Society, 44 (4) pp. 510–534, https://doi.org/10.1093/polsoc/puaf006 European Commission (2024) Better regulation. Brussels: European Commission. Available at: https://commission.europa.eu/law/law-making-process/planning-and-proposing-law/better-regulation_en (Accessed: 18 January 2026). Everglades Foundation (2024) Western Everglades Restoration Project Groundbreaking. Miami, FL: Everglades Foundation. Federal Register (2002) Notice of Intent to Prepare a Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement for the Kensington Gold Mine Project. 67 FR 58138 (13 September). Federal Register (2017) Announcement of the Record of Decision for the Rosemont Copper Project. 82 FR 21352 (8 May). Fernandes, GW., de Paula, G.A., Bender, M.G., Bergallo, H.G., Christofoletti, R., Colli, G.R., Dickison, B., et al. (2025) Shortcuts to degradation: Environmental consequences of Brazil's general environmental licensing law. Perspectives in Ecology and Conservation. Advance online publication. doi: 10.1016/j.pecon.2025.10.004 . Fischer, T.B. (2022) Replacing EIA and SEA with Environmental Outcome Reports (EORs): The 2022 Levelling Up and Regeneration Bill in the UK. Impact Assessment and Project Appraisal, 40(4), pp. 267–268. doi: 10.1080/14615517.2022.2089375 . Foley, M.M., Mease, L.A., Martone, R.G., Prahler, E.E., Morrison, T.H., Murray, C.C. and Wojcik, D. (2017) The challenges and opportunities in cumulative effects assessment. Environmental Impact Assessment Review, 62, pp. 122–134. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eiar.2016.06.008 FSU Libraries (2015) The Cross-Florida Barge Canal: A Guide to the Collection. Tallahassee, FL: Florida State University Libraries. Gunn, J.H. and Noble, B.F. (2009) A conceptual basis and methodological framework for regional strategic environmental assessment (R-SEA). Impact Assessment and Project Appraisal, 27(4), pp. 258–270. Gunn JH, Noble BF (2009) Integrating cumulative effects in regional strategic environmental assessment frameworks: lessons from practice. Journal of Environmental Assessment Policy and Management 11(3):267–290. Gunn, J. & Noble, B. (2011) Conceptual and Methodological Challenges to Integrating SEA and Cumulative Effects Assessment. Environmental Impact Assessment Review 31(2): 154–160 Harriman, J.A.E. and Noble, B.F. (2008) Characterizing project and strategic approaches to regional cumulative effects assessment in Canada. Journal of Environmental Assessment Policy and Management, 10(1), pp. 25–50. Harvey, J.W., Schaffranek, R.W., Noe, G.B., Larsen, L.G., Nowacki, D.J. and O'Connor, B.L. (2017) Hydroecological factors governing surface water flow on a low-gradient floodplain. Water Resources Research, 53(12), pp. 10,254 – 10,273. Harvard Environmental and Energy Law Program (2025) NEPA Environmental Review Requirements Tracker. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Law School. HEI Energy (2025) Roadmap to Health: Assessing Adverse and Beneficial Cumulative Impacts in Communities Affected by Energy Development. Health Effects Institute–Energy, Boston, MA IAIA (2025) Cumulative Effects Assessment and Management: Guidance for Practitioners. FasTips No. 16. Fargo, ND: International Association for Impact Assessment. International Association for Impact Assessment (IAIA) (2025) Trends, Issues, & Insights in Cumulative Effects Assessment. Review Publication. ​ Indigenous Environmental Network v. U.S. Department of State (2018) 347 F. Supp. 3d 561 (D. Mont.). Jackson, H.M. and Dunning, H.C. (1971) Environmental policy: the next generation. Environmental Law, 2(1), pp. 1–25. Jones, C.E. (2016) Cumulative effects assessment in environmental impact assessment: A framework for addressing the "big problems". Environmental Impact Assessment Review, 61, pp. 36–42. https://doi.org/10.1139/er-2015-0073 Karkkainen, B.C. (2002) Toward a smarter NEPA: monitoring and managing government's environmental performance. Columbia Law Review, 102(4), pp. 903–972. Karkkainen BC (2004) Whither NEPA? The paradox of the people’s environmental law. NYU Environmental Law Journal 12:333–363. Kelly, R., Pecl, G.T. and Fleming, A. (2017) Social license in the marine sector: a review of understanding and application. Marine Policy, 81, pp. 21–28. Koebel JW (1995) An historical perspective on the Kissimmee River restoration project. Restoration Ecology 3(3):149–159. Kohli K and M. Menon (2020) The Draft EIA Notification 2020: Reduced regulations and increased exemptions. Centre for Policy Research, New Delhi Leopold, L.B. and Marshall, T.R. (1969) Environmental Impact of the Big Cypress Swamp Jetport. U.S. Geological Survey Circular 647. Washington, DC: U.S. Geological Survey. Loftin, M.K., Toth, L.A. and Koebel, J.W. (1990) A management model for the restoration of the Kissimmee River, Florida. Proceedings of the Florida Lake Management Society. McIntyre, J.K., Baldwin, D.H., Beauchamp, D.A. and Scholz, N.L. (2008) Low-level copper exposures increase visibility and vulnerability of juvenile coho salmon to cutthroat trout predators. Ecological Applications, 18(4), pp. 905–917. Milne, S. (2008) Environmental impact assessment and the extractive sector: the role of strategic environmental assessment. Environmental Impact Assessment Review, 28(7), pp. 484–491. Morrison-Saunders, A., Pope, J., Gunn, J.A.E., Bond, A. and Retief, F. (2014) Strengthening impact assessment: a call for integration and focus. Impact Assessment and Project Appraisal, 32(1), pp. 2–8. National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine (2014) Effects of Energy Development on Wildlife and Habitat. Washington, DC: National Academies Press. National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine (2018) Approaches to Climate Change Impact Assessment. Washington, DC: National Academies Press. National Environmental Justice Advisory Council (NEJAC) (2024) Recommendations for Reducing Cumulative and Disproportionate Impacts and Advancing Environmental Justice. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, DC. National Parks Conservation Association (2020) Ambler Road Environmental Impact. Issue Brief. Washington, DC: NPCA. National Research Council (2003) Cumulative Environmental Effects of Oil and Gas Activities on Alaska's North Slope. Washington, DC: National Academies Press. National Research Council (2011) Sustainability and the U.S. EPA. Washington, DC: National Academies Press. ​ Nelson, R. and Shirley, L.M. (2022) The latent potential of cumulative effects concepts in national and international environmental impact assessment regimes. Transnational Environmental Law, 12(1), pp. 150–174. https://doi.org/10.1017/S2047102522000243 Nixon, R.M. (1971) Statement about halting construction of the Cross Florida Barge Canal. Public Papers of the Presidents, 18 January. Noble, B.F. (2008) Strategic approaches to regional cumulative effects assessment: a case study of the Great Sand Hills, Canada. Impact Assessment and Project Appraisal, 26(2), pp. 78–90. https://doi.org/10.1142/S1464333215500015 Noble, B.F. (2015) Introduction to Environmental Impact Assessment: A Guide to Principles and Practice. 3rd edn. Don Mills, Ontario: Oxford University Press. Noll, S. and Tegeder, D. (2009) Ditch of Dreams: The Cross Florida Barge Canal and the Struggle for Florida's Future. Gainesville, FL: University Press of Florida. Noll, S. and Tegeder, D. (2010) The Cross Florida Barge Canal: environmental impact and political controversy. Florida Historical Quarterly, 88(3), pp. 340–387. Northern Dynasty Minerals Ltd. v. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (2023) No. 3:23-cv-00036-SLG (D. Alaska, filed 17 February). NPS (2025) "World's Largest Jetport" History. Washington, DC: Big Cypress National Preserve, National Park Service. Parenteau, P.A. (2015) The role of judicial review in preventing fragmentation and protecting ecosystems. Environmental Law, 45(4), pp. 975–1012. Phylip-Jones, J. and Fischer, T.B. (2013) Strategic environmental assessment (SEA) for wind energy planning: lessons from the United Kingdom and Germany. Environmental Impact Assessment Review, 50, pp. 203–212. Pope, J., Bond, A., Morrison-Saunders, A. and Retief, F. (2018) Advancing the theory and practice of impact assessment: Setting the research agenda. Environmental Impact Assessment Review, 41, pp. 1–9. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eiar.2013.01.008 Reference re Impact Assessment Act (2023) 2023 SCC 23 (Supreme Court of Canada). Available at: https://decisions.scc-csc.ca/scc-csc/scc-csc/en/item/20102/index.do (Accessed: 18 January 2026). Reuters (2025a) EU eyes more cutbacks to environmental laws after industry criticism. 23 July. Reuters (2025b) EU to weaken more environment reporting rules, draft document shows. 8 December. Reichard, J.S. et al. (2014) “Evidence for saltwater intrusion in the Upper Floridan aquifer on St. Catherines Island, Georgia.” Southeastern Geology 50(3):109–122 (2014). Robertson v. Methow Valley Citizens Council (1989) 490 U.S. 332. Roudgarmi P (2018) Cumulative effects assessment (CEA): a review. J Environ Assess Policy Manag 20(2):1850008. https://doi.org/10.1142/S1464333218500084 Ruhl, J.B. and Salzman, J. (2010) Climate change, dead zones, and massive problems in the administrative state: a guide for whittling away. California Law Review, 98(1), pp. 59–120. Ruple, J.C. and Capone, M. (2016) NEPA—Substantive effectiveness under a procedural mandate: Assessment of oil and gas EISs in the mountain west. Journal of Energy & Natural Resources Law, 34(3), pp. 298–329. Rutherford TK, Hammond TO, Foster AC et al (2026) Cumulative effects analysis to inform public land management in the United States: key characteristics and legal challenges. Environ Impact Assess Rev 117:108–158. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eiar.2025.108158 . Sadler, B. (1996) International Study of the Effectiveness of Environmental Assessment. Final Report. Ottawa: Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency. Scout Environmental (2023) Don't Overlook This Crucial Aspect of NEPA Analysis: Cumulative Impacts. Portland, OR: Scout Environmental. Seawright, J. and Gerring, J. (2008) Case selection techniques in case study research: a menu of qualitative and quantitative options. Political Research Quarterly, 61(2), pp. 294–308. Seven County Infrastructure Coalition v. Eagle County, 605 U.S. 168 (2025) Sinclair, A.J., Doelle, M. and Duinker, P.N. (2017) Looking up, down, and sideways: reconceiving cumulative effects assessment as a mindset. Environmental Impact Assessment Review, 62, pp. 183–194. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eiar.2016.04.007 South Florida Water Management District (1997) Pre-restoration Studies of the Channelized Kissimmee River, Volume I: Baseline Studies. West Palm Beach, FL: SFWMD. South Florida Water Management District (2021) Kissimmee River Restoration Project. West Palm Beach, FL: SFWMD. South Florida Water Management District (2024) Kissimmee River. West Palm Beach, FL: SFWMD. TC Energy (2021) TC Energy Confirms Termination of Keystone XL Pipeline Project. Calgary, AB: TC Energy Corporation. Tedeschi P (2025) A Policy Scan of Cumulative Effects Assessment in Support of Jurisdictional Policy Reform. Alberta CA. Therivel, R. and Ross, B. (2007) Cumulative effects assessment: does scale matter? Environmental Impact Assessment Review, 27(5), pp. 365–385. The White House (2025) Fact Sheet: President Donald J. Trump approves Ambler Road Project to unlock Alaska’s mineral potential. The White House, Washington, DC. https://www.whitehouse.gov/fact-sheets/2025/10/fact-sheet-president-donald-j-trump-approves-ambler-road-project-to-unlock-alaskas-mineral-potential/ . Accessed 14 Feb 2026 Toth, L.A. (1993) The ecological basis of the Kissimmee River restoration plan. Florida Scientist, 56(1), pp. 25–51. Trilogy Metals Inc. (2025) Ambler Access Project Update: Federal Right-of-Way Reinstated. Corporate news release, 6 October. Trustees for Alaska (2020) Complaint for Declaratory and Injunctive Relief: Alatna Tribal Council et al. v. Bureau of Land Management et al. U.S. District Court for the District of Alaska , 4 August 2020. Trump, D.J. (2025) Decision of the President and Statement of Reasons: Ambler Road Project Appeal Under ANILCA Section 1106(a). Washington, DC: White House, 5 October. UK Government (2023) Environmental Outcomes Reports: A new approach to environmental assessment (consultation). GOV.UK, 9 May. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (2025) Army executes POTUS directive on Ambler Road Project. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Washington, DC. https://www.usace.army.mil/Media/News-Releases/News-Release-Article-View/Article/4325651/army-executes-potus-directive-on-ambler-road-project/ . Accessed 14 Feb 2026 U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (1962) Central and Southern Florida Project, Kissimmee River Basin: General Design Memorandum. Jacksonville, FL: Jacksonville District. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (1976) Cross Florida Barge Canal Restudy Report: Summary. Jacksonville, FL: Jacksonville District. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (1977) Final Environmental Impact Statement: Cross Florida Barge Canal. Jacksonville, FL: Jacksonville District. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (1982) Red Dog Mine Access Road Section 404 Permit. Anchorage, AK: Alaska District. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (2020) Record of Decision, Pebble Limited Partnership Permit Application. Anchorage, AK: Alaska District. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (2024) Record of Decision: Review of the Application by Pebble Limited Partnership (POA-2017-00271) in Light of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's Clean Water Act Section 404(c) Final Determination. Joint Base Elmendorf-Richardson, AK: Alaska District, 15 April. U.S. Congress (1954) Flood Control Act of 1954, Public Law 780, 83rd Congress, 17 May. U.S. Department of State (2009) Final Environmental Impact Statement: Alberta Clipper Pipeline Project. DOS-2009-0040. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of State. U.S. Department of State (2011) Final Environmental Impact Statement for the Keystone XL Project. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of State. U.S. Department of State (2014) Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement for the Keystone XL Project. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of State. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (2014) An Assessment of Potential Mining Impacts on Salmon Ecosystems of Bristol Bay, Alaska. EPA 910-R-14-001A. Seattle, WA: EPA Region 10. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (2023) Final Determination of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Region 10 Pursuant to Section 404(c) of the Clean Water Act, Pebble Deposit Area, Southwest Alaska. Federal Register, 88, p. 7,407 (3 February). U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (1959) Fish and Wildlife Resources of the Central and Southern Florida Flood Control Project. Atlanta, GA: U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (2013) Biological Opinion for Enbridge Flanagan South Pipeline. USFWS Midwest Region. Washington, DC: USFWS. U.S. Forest Service (2017) Rosemont Copper Project Final Environmental Impact Statement, Coronado National Forest. Tucson, AZ: U.S. Forest Service, Coronado National Forest. U.S. Department of the Interior (1969) Environmental Impact of the Big Cypress Swamp Jetport (the “Leopold Report”), 155 p. U.S. Geological Survey (2014) Potential for Saltwater Intrusion into the Upper Floridan Aquifer in Hernando and Manatee Counties, Florida. USGS Scientific Investigations Report 2014–5014. Reston, VA: USGS. Yin, R.K. (2003) Case Study Research: Design and Methods. 3rd edn. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Yin, R.K. (2009) Case Study Research: Design and Methods. 4th edn. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Yin, R.K. (2018) Case Study Research and Applications: Design and Methods. 6th edn. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Tables Table 1. Evolution of Cumulative Effects Definition in NEPA Law and Guidance, 1969–2025 Date Regulatory/Policy Action Cumulative Effects Definition Key Implication for Practice 1969 NEPA enacted (42 U.S.C. § 4321 et seq.) Not yet formally defined; implicit in "environmental consequences" Agencies expected to consider indirect and broader effects 1978 CEQ regulations finalized (40 C.F.R. § 1508.7) "Cumulative impact: the impact on the environment resulting from the incremental impact of an action when added to other past, present and reasonably foreseeable future actions" Cumulative effects become a defined, mandatory element of EIS process 1997 CEQ Considering Cumulative Effects Under NEPA handbook Clarifies cumulative effects extend across space, time, induced pathways, and interacting stressors; essential to understanding "full range of consequences" Agencies directed to examine regional trends, long-term accumulation, and cross-jurisdictional effects 1999 EPA Consideration of Cumulative Impacts in EPA Review of NEPA Documents guidance Emphasis on analyzing combined effects across sectors and jurisdictions; cumulative assessment as non-negotiable Practitioners expected to integrate watershed-scale, airshed-scale, and ecosystem-level analyses 2020 CEQ revises NEPA regulations (85 Fed. Regist. 43304) Deletes explicit definitions of "direct," "indirect," and "cumulative" impacts; introduces "reasonably close causal relationship" test Cumulative effects no longer a distinct regulatory category; analysis becomes optional or narrowed 2024 CEQ revises regulations again; upheld in Seven County Infrastructure Coalition v. CEQ (D.C. Cir. 2024) Jurisdictional segmentation principle: agencies need only analyze effects within their statutory authority; cross-jurisdictional and temporally remote effects excluded unless mandated by agency's organic statute Cumulative effects analysis effectively eliminated except where required by agency-specific enabling legislation; system-scale, cross-boundary, and long-term impacts routinely omitted from environmental review 2025 CEQ rescinds NEPA regulations No federal regulatory definition of cumulative effects; analysis entirely discretionary or governed only by agency-specific rules Cumulative effects analysis eliminated as a uniform federal requirement; environmental review fragmented across agencies with no consistent framework for system-scale impact assessment Table 2. Comparative Case Study Matrix: Cumulative Effects Analysis and Project Decision Outcomes, 1962–2025 Case Year(s) Direct Effects Alone CEA Conducted? Key CEA Finding Outcome Decision Authority Cross Florida Barge Canal 1962–1971 Would support approval Late/External Aquifer-scale saltwater intrusion risk; water supply threat to Florida population Denied (halted by President Nixon, 1971) Executive (President); quasi-EIS Everglades Jetport 1968–1969 Would support approval Yes (Leopold Report) Induced urban development; ecosystem destruction via hydrological change; regional effects Denied (project abandoned 1969) Executive/Federal support withdrawn Kissimmee River Channelization 1962–1971 Would support approval No formal CEA None performed pre-project; basin-wide harms emerged post-construction Approved; severe harms; $1B+ restoration required Congressional; pre-NEPA Pebble Mine 2010–2023 Could support approval Yes (Corps EIS + EPA Bristol Bay Assessment) Watershed-scale copper bioaccumulation; salmon olfaction impacts; long-term fishery sustainability threatened Denied (USACE 2020 ROD; EPA 404(c) 2023) USACE + EPA (substantive 404(c)) Keystone XL Pipeline 2008–2021 Would support approval Yes; focus shifted to lifecycle GHG emissions Cumulative climate emissions (billions CO₂-eq); project enables upstream oil sands expansion Cancelled (2021; project termination) NEPA/State Dept + court remands + President Ambler Road 2015–2025 Would support approval Yes; 2024 remand/SEIS on cumulative effects Cumulative induced mining impacts; caribou migration; Indigenous subsistence impacts; multi-mine district build-out Initial: Denied (2024 BLM No Action) Reversed: Approved (2025 ANILCA override) NEPA/BLM initially; Presidential ANILCA override Additional Declarations No competing interests reported. Cite Share Download PDF Status: Under Review Version 1 posted Editorial decision: Revision requested 03 Apr, 2026 Reviews received at journal 02 Apr, 2026 Reviewers agreed at journal 05 Mar, 2026 Reviews received at journal 04 Mar, 2026 Reviewers agreed at journal 04 Mar, 2026 Reviewers agreed at journal 19 Feb, 2026 Reviewers invited by journal 17 Feb, 2026 Editor assigned by journal 17 Feb, 2026 Submission checks completed at journal 15 Feb, 2026 First submitted to journal 14 Feb, 2026 You are reading this latest preprint version Research Square lets you share your work early, gain feedback from the community, and start making changes to your manuscript prior to peer review in a journal. As a division of Research Square Company, we’re committed to making research communication faster, fairer, and more useful. We do this by developing innovative software and high quality services for the global research community. Our growing team is made up of researchers and industry professionals working together to solve the most critical problems facing scientific publishing. Also discoverable on Platform About Our Team In Review Editorial Policies Advisory Board Help Center Resources Author Services Accessibility API Access RSS feed Manage Cookie Preferences © Research Square 2026 | ISSN 2693-5015 (online) Privacy Policy Terms of Service Do Not Sell My Personal Information {"props":{"pageProps":{"initialData":{"identity":"rs-8883186","acceptedTermsAndConditions":true,"allowDirectSubmit":false,"archivedVersions":[],"articleType":"Research Article","associatedPublications":[],"authors":[{"id":593043359,"identity":"fb73163f-9a10-46ca-8513-db6b06bcb32f","order_by":0,"name":"Robert Paterson","email":"","orcid":"","institution":"The University of Texas at Austin","correspondingAuthor":true,"prefix":"","firstName":"Robert","middleName":"","lastName":"Paterson","suffix":""}],"badges":[],"createdAt":"2026-02-15 02:23:11","currentVersionCode":1,"declarations":"","doi":"10.21203/rs.3.rs-8883186/v1","doiUrl":"https://doi.org/10.21203/rs.3.rs-8883186/v1","draftVersion":[],"editorialEvents":[],"editorialNote":"","failedWorkflow":false,"files":[{"id":104808121,"identity":"9f8c82d1-75ec-43c0-a4a0-adfac22f53d3","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2026-03-17 12:16:57","extension":"pdf","order_by":0,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"manuscript-pdf","size":1049230,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"","description":"","filename":"manuscript.pdf","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-8883186/v1/b34768c9-e6a7-4871-8756-560cf2705970.pdf"}],"financialInterests":"No competing interests reported.","formattedTitle":"Cumulative Effects as a Decision‑Forcing Analysis: Lessons from Six U.S. Federal Infrastructure Projects","fulltext":[{"header":"Introduction","content":"\u003cp\u003eWhat is lost when cumulative effects are removed from environmental review? For decades, cumulative effects assessment has been widely recognized as one of the most important\u0026mdash;and most challenging\u0026mdash;elements of environmental assessment (CEQ, 1997; Rutherford et. al 2026; Roudgarmi, 2018). Cumulative effects arise where individually minor actions, operating across space, time, induced development pathways, or interacting stressors, combine to produce environmental change that cannot be understood by examining any single project in isolation.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eRecent regulatory changes have narrowed cumulative effects analysis in the US, making empirical examination of what is lost from environmental review increasingly urgent. The 2020 CEQ revisions removed cumulative effects definitions; the 2024 revisions upheld in the SCOTUS\u0026rsquo; recent \u003cem\u003eSeven County Infrastructure Coalition v. Eagle Coun\u003c/em\u003ety permitted jurisdiction-bounded scoping; and in 2025, CEQ rescinded all NEPA regulations (CEQ, 2020, 2024, 2025; \u003cem\u003eSeven County Infrastructure Coalition v. Eagle County,\u003c/em\u003e 2025). The 2025 Presidential override of a cumulative-effects-based project denial illustrates the practical consequences--jurisdiction-bounded analysis can facilitate statutory approval pathways that bypass NEPA findings (ACOE, 2025).\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThis article tests a specific empirical proposition across six case studies of major federal actions spanning 1962\u0026ndash;2025: that in contested projects where cumulative effects substantially exceed direct impacts, cumulative effects analysis\u0026mdash;not analysis of direct effects\u0026mdash;has functioned as a necessary analytical condition for preventing or constraining system level environmental harm (Karkkainen, 2002; \u003cem\u003eRobertson v. Methow Valley Citizens Council,\u003c/em\u003e 1989). The counterfactual test is whether direct effects analysis alone would have supported project approval\u0026mdash;a question answerable by comparison with analogous projects that received authorization under direct-effects frameworks. The 2025 reversal of a cumulative-effects-based project denial through statutory override---within months of CEQ\u0026apos;s February 2025 rescission of all NEPA implementing regulations---illustrates both the decision-forcing potential of cumulative assessment and its institutional fragility in multi-pathway regulatory systems.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eAlthough these US CEA regulatory changes arise in the NEPA context, the underlying pressures reflect broader international patterns. Many environmental assessment systems worldwide are narrowing the functional reach of indirect- and cumulative-effects scrutiny through streamlining reforms\u0026mdash;accelerated approval pathways, legislated exclusions, and jurisdiction-bounded scoping\u0026mdash;often justified through \u0026ldquo;better regulation\u0026rdquo; and \u0026ldquo;red tape\u0026rdquo; reduction narratives (IAIA, 2025;\u003cstrong\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/strong\u003eDirective 2011/92/EU, as amended by Directive 2014/52/EU; European Commission, 2024). In the UK, Environmental Outcomes Reports have been consulted on as a proposed replacement framework for EIA/SEA (Fischer, 2022); in Canada, the Supreme Court\u0026rsquo;s Impact Assessment Act reference decision underscores constitutional limits that push assessment toward effects \u0026ldquo;within federal jurisdiction\u0026rdquo; foreclosing causally connected but nonfederal actions (traditionally covered in SEA)(Reference re Impact Assessment Act, 2023 SCC 23); comparable pressures are reflected in debates over Australia\u0026rsquo;s EPBC reform proposals and \u0026ldquo;streamlined\u0026rdquo; approval pathways (Environmental Defenders Office, 2025), as well as controversies surrounding India\u0026rsquo;s Draft EIA framework and the legality of post-facto environmental clearances (\u003cem\u003eAlembic Pharmaceuticals Ltd. v. Rohit Prajapati\u003c/em\u003e, 2020; Kohli \u0026amp; Menon, 2022). Beyond such incremental reforms, Brazil\u0026rsquo;s General Environmental Licensing Law (Law No. 15,190/2025) exemplifies sweeping changes reflective of the recent US CEA retrenchment, expanding self-declared licensing and exemptions (Fernandes et al., 2025). These international trajectories make it important to establish\u0026mdash;using decision-outcome evidence rather than procedural checklists\u0026mdash;what is actually lost when cumulative effects analysis is weakened or removed from environmental review.\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"Background and Conceptual Framework","content":"\u003cdiv id=\"Sec2\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003eUS NEPA, Cumulative Impacts, and CEQ regulation\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eFrom NEPA's enactment in 1969 until 2020, the Council on Environmental Quality's (CEQ) regulations defined \"cumulative impact\" as the impact on the environment resulting from the incremental impact of an action when added to other past, present and reasonably foreseeable future actions (40 C.F.R. \u0026sect;\u0026nbsp;1508.7 (1978); CEQ, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR16\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1978\u003c/span\u003e). This definition, read together with the requirement to consider \"indirect\" effects, anchored a practice in which agencies were expected to analyze not only immediate, project-level effects, but also how actions contributed to broader trends and system-level environmental changes (CEQ, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR17\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1997\u003c/span\u003e; CEQ, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR18\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2005\u003c/span\u003e; EPA, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR29\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1999\u003c/span\u003e). Cumulative impact analysis became a core expectation of environmental assessments (EA) and environmental impact statement (EIS) practice, even if implementation was uneven and frequently criticized in both scholarship and agency review guidance (Rutherford, et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR89\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2026\u003c/span\u003e; EPA, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR29\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1999\u003c/span\u003e; Gunn and Noble, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR41\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2011\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eIn July 2020, CEQ deleted the explicit definitions of \"direct,\" \"indirect\" and \"cumulative\" impacts and introduced a \"reasonably close causal relationship\" test, signaling that cumulative analysis was no longer a standardized requirement for NEPA related assessments (CEQ, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR19\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2020\u003c/span\u003e; Davies et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR25\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2021\u003c/span\u003e). The 2024 CEQ revisions, upheld in \u003cem\u003eSeven County Infrastructure Coalition v. Eagle County\u003c/em\u003e, emphasized agency \"jurisdictional authority\" as a scoping boundary, further limiting cross-jurisdictional and system-scale analysis (CEQ, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR20\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2024\u003c/span\u003e; \u003cem\u003eSeven County Infrastructure Coalition v. Eagle County\u003c/em\u003e, 2025; Harvard EELP, 2025). In February 2025, CEQ withdrew its government-wide NEPA implementing regulations, with the rescission effective April 11, 2025, citing recent court decisions concluding that CEQ lacked independent authority to promulgate binding, cross-agency NEPA rules. As a result, NEPA implementation shifted to agency-specific procedures rather than a uniform CEQ framework (CEQ, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR21\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2025\u003c/span\u003e; 90 Fed. Reg. 13,042 (Feb. 25, 2025))(see Table\u0026nbsp;1).\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThis contrasts sharply with CEQ's 1997 handbook and EPA's 1999 guidance, which treated cumulative effects as essential to understanding how incremental actions contribute to broader environmental problems (CEQ, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR17\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1997\u003c/span\u003e; EPA, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR29\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1999\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003cb\u003eTable\u0026nbsp;1. Evolution of Cumulative Effects Definition in US NEPA Law and Guidance, 1969\u0026ndash;2025\u003c/b\u003e \u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec3\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003e(INSERT HERE)\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec4\" class=\"Section3\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003eCumulative Effects Typology\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe typology of cumulative effects analyzed in this article\u0026mdash;spatial, temporal, induced and synergistic\u0026mdash;is consistent with prior NEPA guidance and with the broader cumulative effects assessment (CEA) literature (CEQ, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR17\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1997\u003c/span\u003e; EPA, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR29\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1999\u003c/span\u003e; Canter and Ross, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR13\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2010\u003c/span\u003e; Therivel and Ross, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR100\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2007\u003c/span\u003e). Spatial cumulative effects arise where impacts extend beyond the immediate project footprint across aquifers, watersheds, airsheds or regional ecosystems. Examples include aquifer contamination risks from the Cross Florida Barge Canal and watershed scale impacts of the proposed Pebble Mine on Bristol Bay salmon habitat (Noll and Tegeder, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR74\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2009\u003c/span\u003e; USACE, 2020; EPA, 2014). Temporal cumulative effects occur where impacts emerge or intensify over multi decadal time scales, as in the Kissimmee River channelization, where hydrological, ecological and water quality changes unfolded over several decades following construction (Koebel, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR56\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1995\u003c/span\u003e; SFWMD, 1997; Chen et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR22\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2016\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eInduced development and indirect effects refer to project enabled infrastructure, land use conversion or resource extraction that produces impacts far exceeding the direct footprint (CEQ, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR17\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1997\u003c/span\u003e; Gunn and Noble, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR41\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2011\u003c/span\u003e). The Everglades Jetport and Ambler Road exemplify induced development effects: in both cases, the primary infrastructure was designed to catalyze broader airport related development or mining district build out, with consequent changes in hydrology, habitat and socio-economic conditions (Leopold and Marshall, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR58\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1969\u003c/span\u003e; BLM, 2020; NRC, 2003). Synergistic ecosystem effects arise where multiple stressors interact such that their combined impact exceeds the sum of individual effects\u0026mdash;such as the interaction of wetland loss, altered flow regimes and nutrient loading in the Kissimmee Basin, or the combined influence of copper contamination and climate stressors on salmonid populations in Bristol Bay (Toth, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR102\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1993\u003c/span\u003e; Koebel, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR56\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1995\u003c/span\u003e; McIntyre et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR60\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2008\u003c/span\u003e; EPA, 2014).\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThese dimensions often intersect\u0026ndash;major projects typically produce spatial and temporal cumulative effects while also enabling induced development and synergistic ecological changes (Canter and Ross, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR13\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2010\u003c/span\u003e; Roudgarmi, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR86\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2018\u003c/span\u003e). The typology is therefore used analytically rather than categorically, to clarify which dimensions were most salient in each case and how their analysis\u0026mdash;or omission\u0026mdash;shaped decision outcomes.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003c/div\u003e\n\u003ch3\u003eTheoretical proposition\u003c/h3\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe theoretical proposition analyzed in this article is that in major federal actions where cumulative effects substantially exceed direct effects in magnitude and consequence, cumulative effects analysis has functioned as a necessary analytical condition through which NEPA\u0026rsquo;s informational and decision-forcing functions have been realized (\u003cem\u003eRobertson v. Methow Valley Citizens Council\u003c/em\u003e, 1989; Karkkainen, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR53\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2002\u003c/span\u003e). NEPA itself is a procedural statute\u0026mdash;it requires agencies to take a \u0026ldquo;hard look\u0026rdquo; at environmental consequences and to disclose them publicly, but does not mandate specific substantive outcomes (\u003cem\u003eRobertson v. Methow Valley Citizens Council\u003c/em\u003e, 1989). In practice, however, decisions about whether to approve, deny, or modify projects depend on which effects are analyzed and presented to decision makers and the public (Karkkainen, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR53\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2002\u003c/span\u003e; Jackson and Dunning, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR51\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1971\u003c/span\u003e). The most consequential environmental risks often do not arise at the construction site or within the project footprint, but emerge through induced development, incremental degradation of watersheds or airsheds, long-term accumulation of pollutants, or interactions among multiple stressors (Canter and Ross, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR13\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2010\u003c/span\u003e). When these cumulative dimensions are examined, questions of significance, alternatives, and mitigation often look fundamentally different; impacts that appear manageable at the project scale may prove consequential\u0026mdash;or unacceptable\u0026mdash;once their contribution to system-wide change is made explicit (CEQ, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR17\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1997\u003c/span\u003e; EPA, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR29\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1999\u003c/span\u003e; IAIA, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR47\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2025\u003c/span\u003e). Where cumulative effects are excluded or narrowly scoped, environmental review tends to collapse into a compliance exercise focused on project design features and narrow mitigation commitments (Canter and Ross, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR13\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2010\u003c/span\u003e; Gunn and Noble, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR41\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2011\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe proposition is not framed as a universal law or a probabilistic statement about all federal actions. Rather, it is a theoretical claim about how cumulative effects analysis operates in a specific class of cases\u0026mdash;major, contested federal actions with significant system scale environmental effects and robust documentary records. The six case studies are used to test whether a predicted pattern appears consistently across diverse institutional and ecological contexts. Specifically, the analysis examines whether, in these cases, (a) direct-effects-only analysis would have supported project approval, and (b) cumulative effects analysis, where undertaken, altered project trajectories by revealing impacts that could not plausibly be ignored\u0026mdash;while acknowledging that political, economic, and institutional factors also contributed to outcomes and are not fully disentangled in this study.\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"Methods","content":"\u003cdiv id=\"Sec7\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003eComparative retrospective case study design\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eThis study employs a comparative retrospective case study design to test whether a predicted pattern—cumulative effects analysis altering project outcomes—appears consistently across diverse contexts (Yin, \u003cspan class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2018\u003c/span\u003e). The six cases are purposively selected to maximize variation in time period (1962–2025), agency (Corps, FAA, Interior, State, BLM), geography (Florida, Alaska, Gulf Coast), project type (canal, airport, river, mine, pipeline, road), and ecosystem, each involving substantial cumulative effects that exceed direct project impacts in magnitude or consequence.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003cb\u003eTable\u0026nbsp;2. Comparative case outcomes: role of cumulative effects analysis in six major federal decisions, 1962–2025.\u003c/b\u003e \u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003cb\u003eINSERT TABLE 2 HERE\u003c/b\u003e \u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThree historical cases—the Cross Florida Barge Canal, the Everglades Jetport, and the Kissimmee River channelization—span the period immediately before and after NEPA's enactment, including proto-EIS analyses that influenced NEPA's drafting. Three contemporary cases—the Pebble Mine, Keystone XL Pipeline, and Ambler Road—represent NEPA practice under mature regulatory conditions. This temporal pairing provides two forms of robustness: contemporary cases permit real-time observation of how agencies framed cumulative effects in permitting decisions, while historical cases permit observation of longer-run trajectories, including restoration costs and ecological outcomes that validate (or refute) analytical claims made at authorization (Kissimmee) and institutional reversals where cumulative effects analysis halted in-progress projects (Cross Florida, Everglades).\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eFollowing Yin's replication logic, five cases function as literal replications (examining whether cumulative effects analysis is associated with altered project trajectories), while Kissimmee serves as a theoretical replication (testing the expectation that where cumulative analysis is absent, system-scale harms unfold). The diversity of agencies, ecosystems, and regulatory contexts—spanning six decades and five federal departments—tests whether the predicted pattern holds despite substantial institutional and ecological variation (Seawright and Gerring, \u003cspan class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2008\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec8\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003eCounterfactual evidence and pattern matching\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eFor each case, the analysis asks whether direct-effects-only assessment would have supported project approval, and whether cumulative effects analysis altered that outcome. This study advances EIA effectiveness research by triangulating three forms of evidence:\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e(i) \u003cem\u003eRegulatory precedent comparison\u003c/em\u003e. Comparable federal approvals (Rosemont and Kensington mines for hardrock mining; Alberta Clipper and Flanagan South pipelines for oil transport; Dalton Highway and Red Dog road for Alaska industrial access) establish that projects with similar direct-impact magnitudes received authorization, demonstrating that direct effects alone would have supported approval (Federal Register, \u003cspan class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2017\u003c/span\u003e; U.S. Department of State, \u003cspan class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2009\u003c/span\u003e; USACE, 1982).\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e(ii) \u003cem\u003eDocumentary analysis\u003c/em\u003e. EIS documents, Records of Decision, and judicial opinions showing how cumulative and system-scale analysis altered agency choices (USACE, 2020; EPA, 2023; BLM, \u003cspan class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2024\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e(iii) \u003cem\u003ePost-decision trajectories\u003c/em\u003e. Consequences when cumulative analysis was absent or discounted—directly observed where projects advanced prior to CEA (Cross Florida, Everglades, Kissimmee), and validated through restoration monitoring that reconstructed cumulative harms unfolding over decades (SFWMD, 1997; Chen et al., \u003cspan class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2016\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThis triangulated approach moves beyond the typical \"CEA language present\" document metrics (typical of most CEA evaluations) (Cooper \u0026amp; Sheate, \u003cspan class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2002\u003c/span\u003e) to evaluate whether CEA plausibly functioned as a critical decision-altering mechanism.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e\n\u003ch3\u003eData sources\u003c/h3\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eData sources include environmental impact statements and supporting technical reports, administrative records, court decisions, scientific and restoration literature, and secondary historical accounts. For the historical cases, subsequent scientific studies and restoration monitoring are used to validate or refute claims made in original analyses and to reconstruct the cumulative effects that were predicted or emerged over time (Koebel, \u003cspan class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1995\u003c/span\u003e; SFWMD, 1997; Harvey et al., \u003cspan class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2017\u003c/span\u003e). For the contemporary cases, the analysis focuses on how cumulative effects were treated in EIS documents, Records of Decision, and judicial opinions (USACE, 2020; U.S. Department of State, \u003cspan class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2011\u003c/span\u003e; BLM, 2020).\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003ch3\u003eLimitations\u003c/h3\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe study has several limitations intrinsic to retrospective case research and qualitative comparative analysis. First, there is selection bias–the cases are historically salient, contested and well documented, and thus not statistically representative of all federal actions (Seawright and Gerring, \u003cspan class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2008\u003c/span\u003e). Second, multiple case designs preclude statistical generalization–the goal is to support or challenge a theoretical proposition through analytical generalization (Yin, \u003cspan class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2003\u003c/span\u003e, \u003cspan class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2018\u003c/span\u003e). Third, reconstructing counterfactuals about what would have happened under direct effects only analysis involves interpretive judgement, albeit grounded in documented authorizations, initial EISs and permitting patterns for analogous projects (Noll and Tegeder, \u003cspan class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2009\u003c/span\u003e; USACE, 2020; U.S. Department of State, \u003cspan class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2011\u003c/span\u003e). Claims that direct effects were comparable to other approved projects are supported by specific regulatory precedents: the Rosemont and Kensington mines for hardrock mining (Federal Register, \u003cspan class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2017\u003c/span\u003e; Coeur Alaska, \u003cspan class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2009\u003c/span\u003e), the Alberta Clipper and Flanagan South pipelines for oil transport infrastructure (U.S. Department of State, \u003cspan class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2009\u003c/span\u003e; USFWS, 2013), and the Dalton Highway and Red Dog road for remote Alaska industrial access (Alaska DOT, 2017; USACE, 1982). Where agencies' own scoping documents and alternatives analyses referenced these projects as precedents (BLM, \u003cspan class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2018\u003c/span\u003e; U.S. Department of State, \u003cspan class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2011\u003c/span\u003e), the comparative analysis is grounded in regulatory practice rather than interpretive inference. Finally, other factors—political coalitions, economic conditions, broader policy shifts—also shape outcomes and are not fully disentangled here (Karkkainen, \u003cspan class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2004\u003c/span\u003e; Davies et al., \u003cspan class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2021\u003c/span\u003e). The aim is therefore not to establish causal laws, but to assess whether the theoretically predicted pattern appears consistently enough across diverse contexts to warrant analytical generalization about the role of cumulative effects analysis in NEPA practice and outcomes (and under what conditions).\u003c/p\u003e "},{"header":"Results: Comparative case studies","content":"\u003ch2\u003eHistorical cases\u003c/h2\u003e\u003ch2\u003eCross Florida Barge Canal\u003c/h2\u003e\u003cp\u003eThe Cross Florida Barge Canal was authorized by Congress in 1964 as a 107-mile navigation and flood control project connecting the Atlantic and Gulf coasts (USACE, 1977; Noll and Tegeder, \u003cspan class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2010\u003c/span\u003e). Direct environmental effects—conversion of approximately 9,000 acres of wetlands, flooding of segments of the Ocklawaha River, and canal construction impacts—were recognized and assessed in conventional cost-benefit terms when Congress approved the project (USACE, 1976; Noll and Tegeder, \u003cspan class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2009\u003c/span\u003e). On that basis, the project was deemed economically justified, and construction proceeded for more than five years before any formal environmental impact statement was prepared (USACE, 1977).\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eCumulative effects analysis emerged only after construction was underway. In 1969–1970, the Florida Defenders of the Environment and allied scientists prepared what amounted to a proto EIS, arguing that the canal would cut through confining layers of the Floridan Aquifer and create pathways for saltwater intrusion and chemical contamination of the aquifer, which supplied drinking water to the vast majority of Florida's population (Noll and Tegeder, \u003cspan class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2009\u003c/span\u003e; FSU Libraries, \u003cspan class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2015\u003c/span\u003e). This aquifer-scale risk operated at a spatial scale far beyond the canal corridor and dwarfed the direct footprint impacts. Subsequent hydrogeologic analyses by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and the U.S. Geological Survey confirmed the vulnerability of the Upper Floridan aquifer and the potential for irreversible degradation if confining units were breached (USACE, 1977; USGS, 2014).\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eOn 18 January 1971, President Nixon ordered a halt to construction, explaining that he was acting \"to prevent potentially serious environmental damages\" and noting the Council on Environmental Quality's recommendation to end the project (Nixon, \u003cspan class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1971\u003c/span\u003e). The canal remains partially constructed but incomplete; Congress later deauthorized the project, and the right of way was converted into the Marjorie Harris Carr Cross Florida Greenway (Noll and Tegeder, \u003cspan class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2009\u003c/span\u003e). Direct effects analysis alone had supported authorization and construction. Aquifer-scale cumulative effects analysis—undertaken late and largely outside the Corps—provided the documented analytical basis for the presidential decision to halt the project, as reflected in Nixon’s \u003cspan class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1971\u003c/span\u003e statement citing the Council on Environmental Quality’s recommendation.\u003c/p\u003e\u003ch2\u003eEverglades Jetport\u003c/h2\u003e\u003cp\u003eIn the late 1960s, Miami Dade County, with the support of the Federal Aviation Administration and the State of Florida, proposed a large \"jetport\" facility in Big Cypress Swamp, approximately six miles north of Everglades National Park (Leopold and Marshall, \u003cspan class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1969\u003c/span\u003e; NPS, \u003cspan class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2025\u003c/span\u003e). The facility was envisioned as one of the world's largest airports, with multiple runways and extensive support infrastructure; direct impacts included conversion of roughly 39 square miles of wetlands for runways, terminals, roads and associated facilities (Leopold and Marshall, \u003cspan class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1969\u003c/span\u003e; NPS, \u003cspan class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2025\u003c/span\u003e). A one square mile training runway was completed in 1968–1969, demonstrating that direct site impacts were not, by themselves, sufficient to trigger political or regulatory rejection (NPS, \u003cspan class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2025\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eIn June 1969, Interior Secretary Walter Hickel convened a select committee and asked hydrologist Luna Leopold of the U.S. Geological Survey to direct an environmental assessment (Leopold and Marshall, \u003cspan class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1969\u003c/span\u003e; NPS, \u003cspan class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2025\u003c/span\u003e). The resulting report, Environmental Impact of the Big Cypress Swamp Jetport, argued that the principal environmental risk was not the airport footprint itself, but the induced urban and commercial development the airport would catalyze throughout Big Cypress and the Everglades hydrological system (Leopold and Marshall, \u003cspan class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1969\u003c/span\u003e). Leopold concluded that development associated with the jetport would lead to land drainage and infrastructure construction in the Big Cypress Swamp \"which will inexorably destroy the south Florida ecosystem and thus the Everglades National Park\" (Leopold and Marshall, \u003cspan class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1969\u003c/span\u003e; NPS, \u003cspan class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2025\u003c/span\u003e). The analysis traced induced development along transportation corridors and through regional land use changes, highlighting cumulative hydrological and ecological effects that extended far beyond the project site.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eThe Leopold report is widely regarded as a prototype for NEPA's environmental impact statement requirement and was cited in early discussions of NEPA's Section 102 duties (Jackson and Dunning, \u003cspan class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1971\u003c/span\u003e; CEQ, \u003cspan class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1997\u003c/span\u003e). Its release triggered a rapid reversal of political support—federal and state officials withdrew backing, and the commercial jetport was abandoned; only the training runway remained, later incorporated into Big Cypress National Preserve (Davis, \u003cspan class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2009\u003c/span\u003e; NPS, \u003cspan class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2025\u003c/span\u003e). Subsequent Everglades restoration science, including the Comprehensive Everglades Restoration Plan and the Western Everglades Restoration Project, has confirmed that Big Cypress and the Everglades form an integrated hydrological and ecological system and that alterations in Big Cypress can substantially affect downstream Everglades conditions (Harvey et al., \u003cspan class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2017\u003c/span\u003e; USACE, 2024; Everglades Foundation, \u003cspan class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2024\u003c/span\u003e). Cumulative induced development analysis, grounded in hydrological science, provided the central analytical basis for the reversal of political support—though conservation advocacy, media attention, and Interior Department politics also contributed to the rapid withdrawal of federal and state backing (Leopold and Marshall, \u003cspan class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1969\u003c/span\u003e; Davis, \u003cspan class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2009\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e\u003ch2\u003eKissimmee River Channelization\u003c/h2\u003e\u003cp\u003eThe Kissimmee River channelization, constructed between 1962 and 1971, provides a contrasting case in which cumulative effects analysis was not conducted prior to project completion. The project was authorized by the Flood Control Act of 1954 as part of the Central and Southern Florida Project and constructed based on a 1962 General Design Memorandum focused primarily on flood damage reduction (U.S. Congress, \u003cspan class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1954\u003c/span\u003e; USACE, 1962; Koebel, \u003cspan class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1995\u003c/span\u003e). The channelization converted a 103-mile meandering river with extensive floodplain wetlands into a 56-mile engineered canal (C-38), with the river floodplain system transformed into a series of deep impoundments and leveed reaches (Koebel, \u003cspan class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1995\u003c/span\u003e; SFWMD, 1997). Direct impacts included excavation of the new canal channel and disposal of spoil material, leading to direct loss of an estimated 30,000 acres of riverine and floodplain habitat (Koebel, \u003cspan class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1995\u003c/span\u003e; Toth, \u003cspan class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1993\u003c/span\u003e). The project was justified through standard cost-benefit analysis focused on flood damage reduction and increased land availability for agriculture and urban development (Koebel, \u003cspan class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1995\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eEven before construction began, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service recognized the project's potential for ecological damage and documented concerns about impacts on fish and wildlife resources in 1959 (USFWS, 1959; SFWMD, 1997). During construction, biologists and citizens observed deteriorating ecological conditions and warned of likely long-term effects, and a grassroots movement formed with the goal of restoring the river (Loftin et al., \u003cspan class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1990\u003c/span\u003e; Koebel, \u003cspan class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1995\u003c/span\u003e; SFWMD, 1997). Unlike the Cross Florida Canal and the Everglades Jetport, however, these warnings did not trigger a comprehensive environmental impact statement or an equivalent cumulative effects assessment; NEPA had not yet been enacted, and the project proceeded under a narrow, direct effects-oriented cost-benefit framework (Koebel, \u003cspan class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1995\u003c/span\u003e; SFWMD, 1997).\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eThe cumulative effects that unfolded after completion were severe and basin-wide. Channelization drained an additional 20,000 acres of floodplain wetlands (over and above the initial 30,000 acre loss), extending far beyond the direct canal and spoil footprint, and facilitated extensive conversion of formerly inundated lands to cattle pasture and intensive agriculture (Koebel, \u003cspan class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1995\u003c/span\u003e; SFWMD, 1997; SFWMD, 2024). Hydrological alteration and wetland loss contributed to a 90–92% decline in waterfowl, a 70–74% decline in bald eagle nesting, and a roughly 67% decline in wading birds, indicating widespread ecosystem degradation (Toth, \u003cspan class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1993\u003c/span\u003e; Koebel, \u003cspan class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1995\u003c/span\u003e; SFWMD, 1997). The channelized river also became a major source of nitrogen and phosphorus loading to Lake Okeechobee; studies in the 1990s estimated that approximately 25% of nitrogen and 20% of phosphorus entering the lake originated from the channelized Kissimmee and its drained floodplain, contributing to harmful algal blooms and water quality impairment (Toth, \u003cspan class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1993\u003c/span\u003e; SFWMD, 1997).\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eBeginning in the 1990s, a comprehensive restoration program sought to reverse these adverse effects by backfilling segments of the canal, re-establishing river meanders, and restoring floodplain inundation. The restoration, which required several decades and the acquisition of over 100,000 acres of land, cost on the order of US\u003cspan\u003e$\u003c/span\u003e1\u0026nbsp;billion, nearly thirty times the original construction cost (SFWMD, 2021; Audubon Florida, \u003cspan class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2021\u003c/span\u003e). Pre-restoration baseline studies and subsequent monitoring provide detailed scientific documentation of the cumulative hydrological, ecological, and water quality impacts of the channelization, effectively reconstructing the cumulative effects analysis that was never performed prior to the project (SFWMD, 1997; Chen et al., \u003cspan class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2016\u003c/span\u003e; Harvey et al., \u003cspan class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2017\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e\u003ch2\u003eContemporary Cases\u003c/h2\u003e\u003ch2\u003ePebble Mine\u003c/h2\u003e\u003cp\u003eThe proposed Pebble Mine in southwest Alaska would be a large open pit copper-gold-molybdenum mine located at the headwaters of the Bristol Bay salmon fishery (USACE, 2020; EPA, 2014). Direct impacts analyzed in the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers' Clean Water Act section 404 permitting process included the loss of approximately 105 miles of streams and 2,231 acres of wetlands within the project footprint, along with construction of tailings storage facilities, a power plant, a port, and transportation corridors (USACE, 2020).\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eThese direct impacts, while substantial, are comparable in magnitude to other large hardrock mines that received federal approvals during the same period. The Rosemont Copper Mine in Arizona received a 2017 Record of Decision and Clean Water Act Section 404 permit based on compensatory mitigation, though both were later vacated on unrelated grounds (Federal Register, \u003cspan class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2017\u003c/span\u003e). The Kensington Gold Mine in Alaska received Forest Service approval in 2004 and a Corps Section 404 permit in 2005 authorizing tailings placement, upheld by the Supreme Court in \u003cem\u003eCoeur Alaska v. Southeast Alaska Conservation Council\u003c/em\u003e (2009). In both cases, agencies concluded that substantial direct impacts could proceed under existing frameworks if offset by compensatory mitigation, and did not treat cumulative watershed-scale risks as a basis for denial. The approval of these comparable mines under direct-effects frameworks establishes the counterfactual baseline: Pebble’s direct impacts alone would not have distinguished it from authorized projects. What distinguished the Pebble decision was cumulative watershed-scale analysis.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eIn the Pebble case, however, cumulative watershed-scale effects were central to the environmental analysis. The US EPA's Bristol Bay Assessment and the Corps' Final EIS examined how mine-related contaminants, particularly copper, could be transported downstream, accumulate in sediments and biota, and affect salmon populations far beyond the immediate footprint (EPA, 2014; USACE, 2020). Fisheries science demonstrates that copper at sublethal concentrations impairs salmon olfaction, reducing homing ability and spawning success, and thereby producing population-level impacts even where acute toxicity thresholds are not exceeded (McIntyre et al., \u003cspan class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2008\u003c/span\u003e). The Bristol Bay watershed supports one of the world's most productive wild salmon fisheries, and cumulative effects analysis highlighted the interaction between Pebble's potential contaminant releases, other regional stressors, and the long-term sustainability of the fishery (NRC, 2011; EPA, 2014).\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eIn November 2020, the Corps issued a Record of Decision denying the §\u0026nbsp;404 permit, finding unavoidable adverse impacts and that compensatory mitigation sufficient to offset cumulative watershed effects was not practicable in the Bristol Bay environment (USACE, 2020). The permit denial produced a practical \"No Action\" outcome—no federal authorization for the project. In January 2023, EPA issued a Final Determination under Clean Water Act Section 404(c), prohibiting the use of specified waters in the Bristol Bay watershed as disposal sites for dredged or fill material associated with mining the Pebble deposit (EPA, 2023). The 404(c) determination—grounded in the watershed-scale cumulative effects analysis documented in EPA's 2014 Bristol Bay Assessment—found that discharges would cause unacceptable adverse effects on salmon fishery areas, aquatic ecosystem diversity, and commercial and recreational fisheries, even after accounting for proposed mitigation (EPA, 2023). This determination remains the controlling legal barrier; unless withdrawn by EPA or invalidated by a court, the Pebble project as proposed in the EIS review remains blocked (EPA, 2023; USACE, 2024).\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eDirect effects analysis at the mine site alone—focusing on the 2,231 acres of wetlands and 105 miles of streams within the project footprint—could plausibly have supported permit issuance, consistent with approvals of the Rosemont and Kensington mines based on compensatory mitigation frameworks (Federal Register, \u003cspan class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2017\u003c/span\u003e; Coeur Alaska, \u003cspan class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2009\u003c/span\u003e). It was the cumulative watershed perspective, examining copper bioaccumulation, salmon olfaction impairment, and long-term fishery sustainability across the Bristol Bay ecosystem, that provided the documented regulatory basis for both the Corps’ permit denial and EPA’s categorical prohibition.\u003c/p\u003e\u003ch2\u003eKeystone XL Pipeline\u003c/h2\u003e\u003cp\u003eThe Keystone XL Pipeline proposal involved construction and operation of a 1,179-mile, 36-inch diameter pipeline to transport diluted bitumen from Alberta's oil sands to refineries and export facilities in the United States Gulf Coast region (U.S. Department of State, \u003cspan class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2011\u003c/span\u003e). The 2011 Final Environmental Impact Statement prepared by the U.S. Department of State assessed direct impacts associated with constructing and operating the pipeline, which included temporary ground disturbance along a 110-foot-wide right-of-way, vegetation clearing, localized habitat fragmentation, and risk of spills at river crossings and pump stations (U.S. Department of State, \u003cspan class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2011\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eThese direct impacts were comparable to other large-diameter pipelines approved during the same period, including the Alberta Clipper (2009) and Flanagan South (2013), where agencies concluded direct impacts could be mitigated through standard practices (U.S. Department of State, \u003cspan class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2009\u003c/span\u003e; USFWS, 2013). On that basis, the Department of State initially concluded that Keystone XL’s direct impacts would support approval (U.S. Department of State, \u003cspan class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2011\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eOn that direct-effects basis—comparable to the Alberta Clipper and Flanagan South approvals—the project would plausibly have proceeded. Litigation and subsequent supplemental reviews shifted the decision-relevant question from construction-phase impacts to cumulative lifecycle greenhouse gas emissions, a dimension on which Keystone XL could not be treated as equivalent to previously authorized pipelines. Plaintiffs argued, and the District of Montana agreed in part, that the Department had failed adequately to analyze GHG emissions associated with upstream oil sands extraction, pipeline operation, and downstream combustion of transported oil, and had not sufficiently considered the cumulative climate implications of Keystone XL together with other pipelines transporting Canadian crude such as the Alberta Clipper and the existing Keystone mainline (\u003cem\u003eIndigenous Environmental Network v. Department of State\u003c/em\u003e, 2018). Lifecycle assessments estimated the pipeline could enable extraction and combustion of oil sands crude producing 1.3 to 27.4\u0026nbsp;million metric tons of CO₂-equivalent annually, depending on assumptions about whether the pipeline would increase marginal oil sands production or merely displace other transport modes (U.S. Department of State, \u003cspan class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2014\u003c/span\u003e Supplemental EIS).\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eThe 2014 Supplemental EIS, prepared in response to the court remand, examined these cumulative climate effects in greater detail but concluded that because oil sands production would likely proceed even without Keystone XL—transported by rail or other pipelines—the project's contribution to incremental GHG emissions would be limited (U.S. Department of State, \u003cspan class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2014\u003c/span\u003e). This conclusion remained contested, with EPA and other commenters arguing that the availability of pipeline capacity directly influenced oil sands extraction economics and that treating the pipeline as \"transportation only\" understated its cumulative climate contribution (EPA, 2014 Comments on SEIS). President Obama denied the permit in November 2015, citing climate policy considerations and the project's inconsistent contribution to U.S. energy security (White House, 2015). President Trump reinstated the permit in January 2017 through executive action (Trump, 2017), but the project was again blocked by court decisions in 2018 and 2020 requiring additional environmental review of cumulative climate impacts \u003cem\u003e(Indigenous Environmental Network v. U.S. Department of State\u003c/em\u003e, 2018; \u003cem\u003eNorthern Plains Resource Council v\u003c/em\u003e. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, \u003cspan class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2020\u003c/span\u003e). President Biden revoked the permit on his first day in office, January 20, 2021, and the developer formally cancelled the project in June 2021 (Biden, 2021; TC Energy, \u003cspan class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2021\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eOver more than a decade, successive approvals, denials, and remands turned on whether cumulative climate effects had been sufficiently considered, rather than on direct construction impacts (Davies et al., \u003cspan class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2021\u003c/span\u003e). The protracted focus on cumulative lifecycle GHG emissions—which generated the court remands that legally blocked the project in 2018 and 2020—was a necessary factor distinguishing Keystone XL from hundreds of other pipelines approved under direct-effects analysis, though the ultimate project cancellation also reflected political cycling, organized opposition, and developer economics (Davies et al., \u003cspan class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2021\u003c/span\u003e; National Academies of Sciences, 2018). Direct effects analysis alone had supported initial approval; cumulative climate effects analysis provided the legal and analytical basis on which the project was repeatedly blocked (through repeated court ordered SEIS requirements and executive branch vetoes), creating the conditions under which cancellation became the developer’s rational response.\u003c/p\u003e\u003ch2\u003eAmbler Road\u003c/h2\u003e\u003cp\u003eThe proposed Ambler Mining District Industrial Access Road is a 211‑mile industrial corridor connecting the Dalton Highway to northwest Alaska’s Ambler Mining District, which contains extensive copper and associated deposits across more than 1,700 mining claims (BLM, 2020). BLM’s 2020 Final Environmental Impact Statement analyzed direct effects from clearing a roughly 60‑foot corridor, constructing stream crossings and bridges, developing material sites and quarries, and operating and maintaining the road, estimating disturbance of approximately 2,800 acres of tundra, taiga, and riparian vegetation, localized effects on fish habitat at crossings, and temporary air and noise impacts during construction (BLM, 2020). These direct impacts were comparable to other long‑distance industrial roads in Alaska, notably the 414‑mile Dalton Highway and the 52‑mile Red Dog Mine road, both approved under direct‑effects frameworks with standard mitigation; BLM’s \u003cspan class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2018\u003c/span\u003e scoping documents explicitly cited these as precedents (Alaska DOT, 2017; USACE, 1982; BLM, \u003cspan class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2018\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e​What distinguished Ambler was cumulative and induced development analysis extending far beyond the road corridor. The road was explicitly designed as enabling infrastructure for a multi‑mine district build‑out over several decades rather than as an endpoint, and the EIS examined cumulative effects on the Western Arctic Caribou Herd, induced mine and infrastructure development, secondary transportation corridors, and long‑term impacts on subsistence resources, traditional land use, and food security in Alaska Native communities (BLM, 2020). Tribes and environmental organizations characterized the project as the first step in a landscape‑scale transformation whose cumulative effects would dwarf the 2,800‑acre direct footprint (Trustees for Alaska, \u003cspan class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2020\u003c/span\u003e; National Parks Conservation Association, \u003cspan class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2020\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e​BLM’s March 2020 Record of Decision approved a 50‑year right‑of‑way, following the Dalton/Red Dog precedent and treating direct construction and operational impacts as manageable with mitigation (BLM, 2020 ROD). In 2021, the U.S. District Court for the District of Alaska remanded the decision, holding that BLM had not adequately analyzed cumulative effects of reasonably foreseeable mining development, had failed to take a “hard look” at subsistence and environmental justice impacts, and had not considered a sufficient range of alternatives (\u003cem\u003eSovereign Iñupiat for a Living Arctic v. BLM\u003c/em\u003e, 2021). After supplemental review, BLM issued a June 2024 Record of Decision denying the right‑of‑way, concluding that the road would cause “significant and unavoidable adverse impacts” to waters, fish and wildlife, subsistence uses, and environmental justice, and that there was no practicable alternative to these cumulative effects (BLM, \u003cspan class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2024\u003c/span\u003e ROD).\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e​In October 2025, however, President Trump issued a decision under ANILCA appeal provisions directing the Secretary of the Interior to approve the Ambler Road right‑of‑way and instructing BLM, NPS, and the Corps to reissue necessary permits to expedite construction; the state sponsor, AIDEA, announced that construction would begin in 2026 (Trump, \u003cspan class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2025\u003c/span\u003e; The White House, \u003cspan class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2025\u003c/span\u003e). The Ambler Road case thus demonstrates both the decision‑forcing potential of cumulative and induced‑development analysis—BLM’s \u003cspan class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2024\u003c/span\u003e denial rested explicitly on cumulative effects to caribou, subsistence, and environmental justice—and its institutional vulnerability, as ANILCA authority provided an alternative pathway that overrode NEPA‑based cumulative findings within months (Harvard EELP, 2025). Where Dalton and Red Dog were approved and operated based on direct‑effects analysis and standard mitigation, Ambler’s cumulative effects proved dispositive in judicial review and agency denial, only to be decoupled from authorization outcomes through statutory override.\u003c/p\u003e\u003ch2\u003ePattern Across Six Cases\u003c/h2\u003e\u003cp\u003eThe Pebble case further illustrates how cumulative effects analysis generated through NEPA processes can be translated into substantive statutory prohibitions. EPA's 2023 Section 404(c) determination, grounded in the 2014 Bristol Bay cumulative effects assessment, operates as a categorical barrier that extends beyond any single permit decision to prohibit an entire class of discharges in the Bristol Bay watershed (EPA, 2023). Section 404(c) is one of several mechanisms through which NEPA-generated cumulative effects analysis can trigger binding substantive consequences — others include Clean Water Act Section 401 water quality certification denials and Endangered Species Act jeopardy determinations — but each depends on substantive statutory authority that exists only in limited contexts and remains subject to legal challenge and potential regulatory rescission.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eThe strength of documentary evidence linking cumulative effects analysis to altered outcomes varies across the six cases (Table\u0026nbsp;2). In four cases (Cross Florida, Pebble, Keystone XL remands, and Ambler), the decision document, court opinion, or regulatory determination explicitly cites cumulative effects findings as the regulatory or legal basis for denial, remand, or prohibition. In one case (Everglades Jetport), the documentary record strongly supports CEA’s causal role while acknowledging concurrent political and advocacy contributions. In the sixth (Kissimmee), the causal claim is inherently counterfactual. This variation in evidentiary strength is consistent with the study’s theoretical proposition: CEA functions as a necessary analytical condition within varied institutional and political contexts, but not as a single cause explanation.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eIn three cases (Pebble, Everglades Jetport, Cross Florida Barge Canal), cumulative/system-scale framing coincides with high outcome leverage, suggesting that CEA is most decision-altering when it activates a hard constraint or alternative selection rather than incremental mitigation. Two cases (Keystone XL, Ambler Road) occupy a middle ground where system-scale impacts are salient but the decision signal is unstable, consistent with scope-bounded authority and political cycling. Finally, Kissimmee illustrates a “regret” pathway: system-scale harms manifest over time and produce delayed correction through restoration rather than contemporaneous decision change. Together, these patterns support the claim that CEA effectiveness is mediated less by analytic sophistication than by institutional coupling between system-scale knowledge and binding decision authority.\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"Discussion","content":"\u003cdiv id=\"Sec23\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003eCumulative effects and substantive effectiveness\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe pattern across the six cases exemplifies what Morrison‑Saunders et al. (2014) describe as substantive effectiveness in environmental assessment: where cumulative effects analysis was undertaken at appropriate scales, it provided the documented analytical basis for shifting outcomes toward environmental protection, with evidentiary strength ranging from explicit legal and regulatory grounding to well‑supported counterfactual inference (Cashmore, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR14\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2004\u003c/span\u003e; Bond et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR11\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2013\u003c/span\u003e; Morrison‑Saunders et al., 2014). This is notable given the mixed conclusions in the EIA effectiveness literature about whether environmental review actually influences final decisions. The cases suggest that a key distinction lies in analytical scope: project‑proximate assessment tends to become a compliance exercise confirming predetermined decisions, whereas system‑scale analysis generates decision‑relevant information that is harder to ignore in public debate, judicial review, or administrative reasoning (Noble, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR73\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2015\u003c/span\u003e). Nelson and Shirley\u0026rsquo;s (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR70\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2022\u003c/span\u003e) characterization of CEA as \u0026ldquo;transformational\u0026rdquo; rather than merely \u0026ldquo;technical‑rational\u0026rdquo; is borne out here\u0026mdash;by connecting individual projects to broader environmental trajectories, cumulative analysis surfaces value‑laden questions about acceptable development pathways that project‑level assessment alone obscures.​\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eUnlike process‑quality evaluations that record whether cumulative effects language appears in EISs (Cooper and Sheate, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR24\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2002\u003c/span\u003e; Foley et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR37\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2017\u003c/span\u003e), this study uses counterfactual analysis to ask whether outcomes would plausibly have differed without CEA. Across the cases, direct‑effects analysis consistently resembled that of other authorized projects, while cumulative analysis revealed system‑scale risks\u0026mdash;aquifer contamination, induced regional development, lifecycle greenhouse gas emissions, watershed bioaccumulation, basin‑wide ecological degradation\u0026mdash;that proved disqualifying or trajectory‑altering. In this defined class of major, contested federal actions, CEA thus functioned as a necessary analytical condition for altered outcomes: the evidentiary basis without which decision trajectories would plausibly not have changed, even though CEA was never independently sufficient and always operated alongside political, economic, and institutional factors (Canter and Ross, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR13\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2010\u003c/span\u003e; Gunn and Noble, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR41\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2011\u003c/span\u003e).​\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe cases further clarify when cumulative effects analysis shapes decisions and when it does not. Pebble Mine illustrates strong institutional coupling between cumulative analysis and substantive authority: EPA\u0026rsquo;s Section 404(c) determination directly translated watershed‑scale cumulative findings into categorical prohibition extending beyond any single permit (EPA, 2014, 2023). Comparable coupling can arise through Section 401 certification denials or ESA jeopardy determinations, which link NEPA‑generated CEA to binding statutory outcomes even though such mechanisms were not invoked in the other cases. By contrast, Ambler Road highlights CEA\u0026rsquo;s fragility when confined to NEPA\u0026rsquo;s procedural \u0026ldquo;hard look\u0026rdquo; framework: rigorous cumulative and induced‑development analysis supported BLM\u0026rsquo;s \u003cspan citationid=\"CR8\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2024\u003c/span\u003e denial, yet Presidential action under ANILCA provided an alternative pathway that reinstated authorization (BLM, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR8\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2024\u003c/span\u003e ROD; The White House 2026). The critical difference lies not in analytical quality but in institutional pathways\u0026mdash;whether CEA findings are embedded in substantive decision authority or remain procedurally vulnerable to override\u0026mdash;an aspect largely absent from CEA scholarship focused primarily on methodological adequacy (Noble, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR72\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2008\u003c/span\u003e; Gunn and Noble, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR41\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2011\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec25\" class=\"Section3\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003eRegulatory Retrenchment, Implementation Gaps, and System‑scale Risk\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe findings resonate with long‑standing international literature documenting that cumulative effects are poorly scoped and weakly operationalized across many jurisdictions (Cooper and Sheate, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR24\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2002\u003c/span\u003e; Duinker and Greig, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR28\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2006\u003c/span\u003e; Canter and Ross, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR13\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2010\u003c/span\u003e; Foley et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR37\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2017\u003c/span\u003e). What this study adds is decision‑outcome evidence that when cumulative analysis has been conducted at appropriate spatial, temporal, and induced‑development scales\u0026mdash;as in the Cross Florida aquifer assessment, Leopold\u0026rsquo;s Everglades regional development analysis, EPA\u0026rsquo;s Bristol Bay watershed work, and BLM\u0026rsquo;s Ambler SEIS\u0026mdash;it has functioned as the decisive mechanism constraining or denying projects. Conversely, where projects proceeded without systematic CEA, as in the Kissimmee River channelization, basin‑wide harms unfolded that later required long‑term restoration investments on the order of thirty times original construction cost (Chen et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR22\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2016\u003c/span\u003e; SFWMD, 2021). The implementation failures documented internationally (Sinclair et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR94\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2017\u003c/span\u003e; IAIA, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR47\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2025\u003c/span\u003e) therefore have concrete decision consequences: without robust CEA, the analytical capacity to distinguish locally manageable project‑scale impacts from system‑threatening trajectories is lost.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec26\" class=\"Section3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe October 2025 Presidential approval of the Ambler Road right‑of‑way, following BLM\u0026rsquo;s \u003cspan citationid=\"CR8\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2024\u003c/span\u003e denial grounded in cumulative effects and subsistence/environmental justice concerns, illustrates how this implementation gap interacts with institutional design in a post‑rescission environment (BLM, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR8\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2024\u003c/span\u003e ROD; Trump, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR105\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2025\u003c/span\u003e; The White House \u003cspan citationid=\"CR101\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2025\u003c/span\u003e). Where NEPA‑based cumulative analysis constrains projects, alternative statutory pathways\u0026mdash;here ANILCA appeals\u0026mdash;can provide override mechanisms that reinstate approvals despite unresolved system‑scale risks, a pattern also visible in other domains where projects navigate multiple approval routes and express statutory exclusions (Ruhl and Salzman, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR87\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2010\u003c/span\u003e; Parenteau, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR78\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2015\u003c/span\u003e). The Ambler reversal occurred within months of CEQ\u0026rsquo;s \u003cspan citationid=\"CR21\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2025\u003c/span\u003e rescission of all NEPA implementing regulations, which eliminated the formal requirement to analyze cumulative effects and endorsed jurisdiction‑bounded scoping (CEQ, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR21\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2025\u003c/span\u003e; Davies et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR25\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2021\u003c/span\u003e). Although the override was formally grounded in ANILCA rather than NEPA doctrine, the regulatory context matters: when cumulative analysis is no longer standardized, it becomes easier for agencies and decision‑makers to defend approvals that exclude system‑scale risks, and statutory override mechanisms face fewer procedural obstacles (Harvard EELP, 2025). From the standpoint of the case pattern documented here, Ambler thus encapsulates both CEA\u0026rsquo;s decision‑forcing potential\u0026mdash;evident in the 2021 remand and 2024 denial\u0026mdash;and its institutional fragility when not coupled to durable substantive authority (Karkkainen, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR53\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2002\u003c/span\u003e, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR54\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2004\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec27\" class=\"Section3\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003e​\u003c/h2\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003c/div\u003e"},{"header":"Conclusion","content":"\u003cp\u003eThis study provides counterfactual evidence that cumulative effects analysis has functioned as a necessary analytical condition for constraining system‑scale environmental harm in a defined class of major, contested U.S. federal infrastructure and resource development projects. Across six cases spanning 1962\u0026ndash;2025, direct effects were comparable to those of other projects that received authorization, while cumulative analysis\u0026mdash;of aquifer contamination, induced regional development, lifecycle greenhouse gas emissions, watershed bioaccumulation, and basin‑wide ecological change\u0026mdash;provided the basis for denial, cancellation, or substantial constraint. Documentary evidence linking CEA to altered outcomes ranges from explicit legal and regulatory citations (Cross Florida, Pebble, Keystone XL remands, Ambler) to strong inferential support alongside political dynamics (Everglades) and retrospective reconstruction of harms where CEA was absent (Kissimmee). These consistent patterns across six decades, five federal agencies, and diverse ecosystems underscore that cumulative effects analysis has been central, rather than peripheral, to the environmental protection actually achieved through NEPA practice in such high‑stakes decisions.​\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe Ambler Road sequence crystallizes the contemporary stakes. BLM\u0026rsquo;s \u003cspan citationid=\"CR8\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2024\u003c/span\u003e denial, grounded in systematic cumulative and induced‑development analysis of mining district build‑out, caribou migration, subsistence, and environmental justice, was overridden in 2025 through ANILCA authority within months of CEQ\u0026rsquo;s rescission of NEPA\u0026rsquo;s cumulative‑effects requirements (BLM, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR8\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2024\u003c/span\u003e ROD; CEQ, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR21\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2025\u003c/span\u003e; Trump, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR105\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2025\u003c/span\u003e). Together with the 2020 and 2024 regulatory revisions and the \u003cem\u003eSeven County\u003c/em\u003e decision\u0026rsquo;s jurisdiction‑bounded scoping logic, this creates a regulatory environment in which system‑scale risks may be identified analytically yet excluded from authorization decisions through jurisdictional segmentation, narrow causation tests, or alternative approval mechanisms (CEQ, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR19\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2020\u003c/span\u003e, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR20\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2024\u003c/span\u003e; \u003cem\u003eSeven County Infrastructure Coalition v. Eagle County\u003c/em\u003e, 2025; Davies et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR25\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2021\u003c/span\u003e; Harvard EELP, 2025). The U.S. experience documented here therefore illustrates not only CEA\u0026rsquo;s analytical power but also how institutional design can decouple robust analysis from binding outcomes.​\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThese findings have implications beyond the U.S. NEPA context. As Blakley and Russell (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR7\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2019\u003c/span\u003e) note, the severity of many cumulative problems\u0026mdash;climate change, collapsing fisheries, biodiversity decline\u0026mdash;means that getting CEA \u0026ldquo;right, and fast\u0026rdquo; is critical. Yet jurisdictions worldwide confront similar pressures to streamline assessment by narrowing cumulative and indirect effects analysis, often justified by regulatory efficiency narratives (Sinclair et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR94\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2017\u003c/span\u003e; Fischer and Retief, 2022; Fernandes et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR35\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2025\u003c/span\u003e). Three implications follow from the six‑case record. First, the distinction between project‑level and system‑scale analysis is not merely methodological but outcome‑determinative: impacts that appear acceptable under direct‑effects frameworks can represent unacceptable system‑scale risks once cumulative trajectories are examined. Second, cumulative effects analysis exerts greatest decision‑forcing influence when integrated into substantive statutory authority\u0026mdash;such as Clean Water Act Section 404(c) prohibitions, Section 401 water quality certifications, or ESA jeopardy determinations\u0026mdash;rather than confined to procedural review that can be circumvented via alternative approval pathways (EPA, 2014, 2023; Ruhl and Salzman, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR87\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2010\u003c/span\u003e). Third, the Kissimmee River restoration, costing roughly thirty times original construction, exemplifies how analytical gaps translate into long‑term financial and ecological liabilities borne by future publics, even when restoration cannot fully re‑establish pre‑project conditions (SFWMD, 2021; Chen et al, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR22\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2016\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec29\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eFor jurisdictions considering EIA \u0026ldquo;streamlining\u0026rdquo; or CEA retrenchment, the six decades of U.S. decisions analyzed here offer empirical grounding for caution. Removing or diluting cumulative effects analysis does more than simplify documents or shorten review timelines; it eliminates one of the few mechanisms by which large‑scale, long‑term environmental risks have been identified and constrained at legally consequential decision points.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e"},{"header":"Declarations","content":"\u003cp\u003eThe author declares that they have no known competing financial or non‑financial interests that could have appeared to influence the work reported in this paper. Data sharing is not applicable to this article as no new datasets were generated or analyzed in this study.\u003c/p\u003e\u003ch2\u003eAuthor Contribution\u003c/h2\u003e\u003cp\u003eRobert Paterson conceived and designed the study, collected and analyzed the data, and wrote the manuscript.\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"References","content":"\u003col\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eAlaska Department of Environmental Conservation (2022) Red Dog Mine Site Information. Available at: \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://dec.alaska.gov/spar/csp/sites/red-dog/\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"https://dec.alaska.gov/spar/csp/sites/red-dog/\" targettype=\"URL\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e (Accessed: 19 January 2026).\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eAlaska Department of Transportation \u0026amp; Public Facilities (2017) Dalton Highway History. Available at: \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://dot.alaska.gov/highways/dalton/\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"https://dot.alaska.gov/highways/dalton/\" targettype=\"URL\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e (Accessed: 19 January 2026).\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003e\u003cem\u003eAlembic Pharmaceuticals Ltd. v. Rohit Prajapati \u0026amp; Ors\u003c/em\u003e. (2020) 2020 SCC OnLine SC 347 (Supreme Court of India).\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eAllen Matkins (2025) The CEQ Has No Clothes: The End of CEQ's NEPA Regulations and the Future of NEPA Practice. 21 February.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eAlyeska Pipeline Service Company (n.d.) The Dalton Highway / The Haul Road. Alyeska Pipeline Service Company, Anchorage, AK. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://alyeska-pipe.com/pipeline_facts/the-dalton-highway-the-haul-road/\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"https://alyeska-pipe.com/pipeline_facts/the-dalton-highway-the-haul-road/\" targettype=\"URL\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e. Accessed 14 Feb 2026.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eAudubon Florida (2021) Kissimmee River project\u0026mdash;largest restoration initiative of its kind\u0026mdash;complete after nearly 20 years. Tallahassee, FL: National Audubon Society, Florida Program.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eBlakley, J. and Russell, J. (2019) Trends, Issues and Insights in Cumulative Effects Assessment: A Review of International Academic Literature 2008\u0026ndash;2018. Fargo, ND: International Association for Impact Assessment.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eBLM (2024) Ambler Mining District Industrial Access Project Record of Decision (Denial). Anchorage, AK: Bureau of Land Management, Alaska. June 2024.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eBLM (2018) Ambler Road Environmental Impact Statement: Scoping Summary Report. U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Anchorage, AK.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003ehttps://\u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"http://www.aideaaeaprocurement.org/Home/File/2444\" targettype=\"URL\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e. Accessed 14 Feb 2026\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eBond, A., Morrison-Saunders, A. and Howitt, R. (eds.) (2013) Sustainability Assessment: Pluralism, Practice and Progress. London: Routledge.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eBureau of Land Management (2020) Final Environmental Impact Statement, Ambler Road Project. Anchorage, AK: U.S. Department of the Interior.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eCanter, L.W. and Ross, B. (2010) State of practice of cumulative effects assessment and management: the good, the bad and the ugly. Impact Assessment and Project Appraisal, 28(4), pp. 261\u0026ndash;268.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eCashmore, M. (2004) The role of science in environmental impact assessment: process and procedure versus purpose in the development of theory. Environmental Impact Assessment Review, 24(4), pp. 403\u0026ndash;426.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eCashmore, M., Gwilliam, R., Morgan, R., Cobb, D. and Bond, A. (2004) The interminable issue of effectiveness: substantive purposes, outcomes and research challenges in the advancement of environmental impact assessment theory. Impact Assessment and Project Appraisal, 22(4), pp. 295\u0026ndash;310.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eCEQ (1978) Regulations for implementing the procedural provisions of the National Environmental Policy Act. 40 C.F.R. Parts 1500\u0026ndash;1508. 43 Fed. Reg. 55978 (Nov. 29, 1978) Washington, DC: Council on Environmental Quality.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eCEQ (1997) Considering Cumulative Effects Under the National Environmental Policy Act. Washington, DC: Council on Environmental Quality.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eCEQ (2005) June 24, Guidance on the Consideration of Past Actions in Cumulative Effects Analysis. Washington, DC: Council on Environmental Quality.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eCEQ (2020) Update to the Regulations Implementing the Procedural Provisions of the National Environmental Policy Act. Federal Register, 85, pp. 43,304\u0026thinsp;\u0026ndash;\u0026thinsp;43,376.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eCEQ (2024) National Environmental Policy Act Implementing Regulations Revisions. Washington, DC: Council on Environmental Quality.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eCEQ (2025) Removal of National Environmental Policy Act Implementing Regulations. Federal Register, 90, p. 13,042 (25 February).\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eChen, X., Wang, D., Tian, F., and Sivapalan, M. (2016). From channelization to restoration: Sociohydrologic modeling with changing community preferences in the Kissimmee River Basin, Florida. Water Resources Research, 52(2), 1227\u0026ndash;1244. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1002/2015WR018194\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1002/2015WR018194\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eCoeur Alaska, \u003cem\u003eInc. v. Southeast Alaska Conservation\u003c/em\u003e Council (2009) 557 U.S. 261.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eCooper, L.M. and Sheate, W.R. (2002) Cumulative effects assessment: a review of UK environmental impact statements. Environmental Impact Assessment Review, 22(4), pp. 415\u0026ndash;439.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eDavies, A., Zellmer, S. and Squillace, M. (2021) NEPA in the age of Trump: cumulative impacts, climate change, and the rule of law. Environmental Law Reporter, 51, pp. 10,245\u0026thinsp;\u0026ndash;\u0026thinsp;10,262.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eDavis, J.E. (2009). An Everglades Providence: Marjory Stoneman Douglas and the American Environmental Century. Athens: University of Georgia Press.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eDirective 2011/92/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 December 2011 on the assessment of the effects of certain public and private projects on the environment (as amended by Directive 2014/52/EU). Official Journal of the European Union.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eDuinker, P.N. and Greig, L.A. (2006) The impotence of cumulative effects assessment in Canada: ailments and ideas for redeployment. Environmental Management, 37(2), pp. 153\u0026ndash;161. Doi.org/0.1007/s00267-004-0240-5\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eEPA (1999) Consideration of Cumulative Impacts in EPA Review of NEPA Documents. Washington, DC: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eEitan, Avri and David Levi-Faur (2025) Environmental impact assessments as a mechanism of regulatory intermediation: the case of Israeli wind energy, Policy and Society, 44 (4) pp. 510\u0026ndash;534, \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1093/polsoc/puaf006\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1093/polsoc/puaf006\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eEuropean Commission (2024) Better regulation. Brussels: European Commission. Available at: \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://commission.europa.eu/law/law-making-process/planning-and-proposing-law/better-regulation_en\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"https://commission.europa.eu/law/law-making-process/planning-and-proposing-law/better-regulation_en\" targettype=\"URL\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e (Accessed: 18 January 2026).\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eEverglades Foundation (2024) Western Everglades Restoration Project Groundbreaking. Miami, FL: Everglades Foundation.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eFederal Register (2002) Notice of Intent to Prepare a Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement for the Kensington Gold Mine Project. 67 FR 58138 (13 September).\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eFederal Register (2017) Announcement of the Record of Decision for the Rosemont Copper Project. 82 FR 21352 (8 May).\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eFernandes, GW., de Paula, G.A., Bender, M.G., Bergallo, H.G., Christofoletti, R., Colli, G.R., Dickison, B., et al. (2025) Shortcuts to degradation: Environmental consequences of Brazil's general environmental licensing law. Perspectives in Ecology and Conservation. Advance online publication. doi: \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003e10.1016/j.pecon.2025.10.004\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1016/j.pecon.2025.10.004\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eFischer, T.B. (2022) Replacing EIA and SEA with Environmental Outcome Reports (EORs): The 2022 Levelling Up and Regeneration Bill in the UK. Impact Assessment and Project Appraisal, 40(4), pp. 267\u0026ndash;268. doi: \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003e10.1080/14615517.2022.2089375\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1080/14615517.2022.2089375\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eFoley, M.M., Mease, L.A., Martone, R.G., Prahler, E.E., Morrison, T.H., Murray, C.C. and Wojcik, D. (2017) The challenges and opportunities in cumulative effects assessment. Environmental Impact Assessment Review, 62, pp. 122\u0026ndash;134. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1016/j.eiar.2016.06.008\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1016/j.eiar.2016.06.008\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eFSU Libraries (2015) The Cross-Florida Barge Canal: A Guide to the Collection. Tallahassee, FL: Florida State University Libraries.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eGunn, J.H. and Noble, B.F. (2009) A conceptual basis and methodological framework for regional strategic environmental assessment (R-SEA). Impact Assessment and Project Appraisal, 27(4), pp. 258\u0026ndash;270.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eGunn JH, Noble BF (2009) Integrating cumulative effects in regional strategic environmental assessment frameworks: lessons from practice. Journal of Environmental Assessment Policy and Management 11(3):267\u0026ndash;290.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eGunn, J. \u0026amp; Noble, B. (2011) Conceptual and Methodological Challenges to Integrating SEA and\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eCumulative Effects Assessment. Environmental Impact Assessment Review 31(2): 154\u0026ndash;160\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eHarriman, J.A.E. and Noble, B.F. (2008) Characterizing project and strategic approaches to regional cumulative effects assessment in Canada. Journal of Environmental Assessment Policy and Management, 10(1), pp. 25\u0026ndash;50.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eHarvey, J.W., Schaffranek, R.W., Noe, G.B., Larsen, L.G., Nowacki, D.J. and O'Connor, B.L. (2017) Hydroecological factors governing surface water flow on a low-gradient floodplain. Water Resources Research, 53(12), pp. 10,254\u0026thinsp;\u0026ndash;\u0026thinsp;10,273.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eHarvard Environmental and Energy Law Program (2025) NEPA Environmental Review Requirements Tracker. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Law School.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eHEI Energy (2025) Roadmap to Health: Assessing Adverse and Beneficial Cumulative Impacts in Communities Affected by Energy Development. Health Effects Institute\u0026ndash;Energy, Boston, MA\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eIAIA (2025) Cumulative Effects Assessment and Management: Guidance for Practitioners. FasTips No. 16. Fargo, ND: International Association for Impact Assessment.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eInternational Association for Impact Assessment (IAIA) (2025) Trends, Issues, \u0026amp; Insights in Cumulative Effects Assessment. Review Publication.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003e​\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003e\u003cem\u003eIndigenous Environmental Network v. U.S. Department of State\u003c/em\u003e (2018) 347 F. Supp. 3d 561 (D. Mont.).\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eJackson, H.M. and Dunning, H.C. (1971) Environmental policy: the next generation. Environmental Law, 2(1), pp. 1\u0026ndash;25.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eJones, C.E. (2016) Cumulative effects assessment in environmental impact assessment: A framework for addressing the \"big problems\". Environmental Impact Assessment Review, 61, pp. 36\u0026ndash;42. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1139/er-2015-0073\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1139/er-2015-0073\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eKarkkainen, B.C. (2002) Toward a smarter NEPA: monitoring and managing government's environmental performance. Columbia Law Review, 102(4), pp. 903\u0026ndash;972.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eKarkkainen BC (2004) Whither NEPA? The paradox of the people\u0026rsquo;s environmental law. NYU Environmental Law Journal 12:333\u0026ndash;363.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eKelly, R., Pecl, G.T. and Fleming, A. (2017) Social license in the marine sector: a review of understanding and application. Marine Policy, 81, pp. 21\u0026ndash;28.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eKoebel JW (1995) An historical perspective on the Kissimmee River restoration project. Restoration Ecology 3(3):149\u0026ndash;159.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eKohli K and M. Menon (2020) The Draft EIA Notification 2020: Reduced regulations and increased exemptions. Centre for Policy Research, New Delhi\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eLeopold, L.B. and Marshall, T.R. (1969) Environmental Impact of the Big Cypress Swamp Jetport. U.S. Geological Survey Circular 647. Washington, DC: U.S. Geological Survey.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eLoftin, M.K., Toth, L.A. and Koebel, J.W. (1990) A management model for the restoration of the Kissimmee River, Florida. Proceedings of the Florida Lake Management Society.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eMcIntyre, J.K., Baldwin, D.H., Beauchamp, D.A. and Scholz, N.L. (2008) Low-level copper exposures increase visibility and vulnerability of juvenile coho salmon to cutthroat trout predators. Ecological Applications, 18(4), pp. 905\u0026ndash;917.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eMilne, S. (2008) Environmental impact assessment and the extractive sector: the role of strategic environmental assessment. Environmental Impact Assessment Review, 28(7), pp. 484\u0026ndash;491.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eMorrison-Saunders, A., Pope, J., Gunn, J.A.E., Bond, A. and Retief, F. (2014) Strengthening impact assessment: a call for integration and focus. Impact Assessment and Project Appraisal, 32(1), pp. 2\u0026ndash;8.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eNational Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine (2014) Effects of Energy Development on Wildlife and Habitat. Washington, DC: National Academies Press.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eNational Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine (2018) Approaches to Climate Change Impact Assessment. Washington, DC: National Academies Press.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eNational Environmental Justice Advisory Council (NEJAC) (2024) Recommendations for Reducing Cumulative and Disproportionate Impacts and Advancing Environmental Justice. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, DC.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eNational Parks Conservation Association (2020) Ambler Road Environmental Impact. Issue Brief. Washington, DC: NPCA.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eNational Research Council (2003) Cumulative Environmental Effects of Oil and Gas Activities on Alaska's North Slope. Washington, DC: National Academies Press.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eNational Research Council (2011) Sustainability and the U.S. EPA. Washington, DC: National Academies Press.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003e​\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eNelson, R. and Shirley, L.M. (2022) The latent potential of cumulative effects concepts in national and international environmental impact assessment regimes. Transnational Environmental Law, 12(1), pp. 150\u0026ndash;174. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1017/S2047102522000243\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1017/S2047102522000243\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eNixon, R.M. (1971) Statement about halting construction of the Cross Florida Barge Canal. Public Papers of the Presidents, 18 January.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eNoble, B.F. (2008) Strategic approaches to regional cumulative effects assessment: a case study of the Great Sand Hills, Canada. Impact Assessment and Project Appraisal, 26(2), pp. 78\u0026ndash;90. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1142/S1464333215500015\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1142/S1464333215500015\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eNoble, B.F. (2015) Introduction to Environmental Impact Assessment: A Guide to Principles and Practice. 3rd edn. Don Mills, Ontario: Oxford University Press.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eNoll, S. and Tegeder, D. (2009) Ditch of Dreams: The Cross Florida Barge Canal and the Struggle for Florida's Future. Gainesville, FL: University Press of Florida.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eNoll, S. and Tegeder, D. (2010) The Cross Florida Barge Canal: environmental impact and political controversy. Florida Historical Quarterly, 88(3), pp. 340\u0026ndash;387.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003e\u003cem\u003eNorthern Dynasty Minerals Ltd. v. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency\u003c/em\u003e (2023) No. 3:23-cv-00036-SLG (D. Alaska, filed 17 February).\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eNPS (2025) \"World's Largest Jetport\" History. Washington, DC: Big Cypress National Preserve, National Park Service.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eParenteau, P.A. (2015) The role of judicial review in preventing fragmentation and protecting ecosystems. Environmental Law, 45(4), pp. 975\u0026ndash;1012.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003ePhylip-Jones, J. and Fischer, T.B. (2013) Strategic environmental assessment (SEA) for wind energy planning: lessons from the United Kingdom and Germany. Environmental Impact Assessment Review, 50, pp. 203\u0026ndash;212.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003ePope, J., Bond, A., Morrison-Saunders, A. and Retief, F. (2018) Advancing the theory and practice of impact assessment: Setting the research agenda. Environmental Impact Assessment Review, 41, pp. 1\u0026ndash;9. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1016/j.eiar.2013.01.008\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1016/j.eiar.2013.01.008\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eReference re Impact Assessment Act (2023) 2023 SCC 23 (Supreme Court of Canada). Available at: \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://decisions.scc-csc.ca/scc-csc/scc-csc/en/item/20102/index.do\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"https://decisions.scc-csc.ca/scc-csc/scc-csc/en/item/20102/index.do\" targettype=\"URL\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e (Accessed: 18 January 2026).\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eReuters (2025a) EU eyes more cutbacks to environmental laws after industry criticism. 23 July.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eReuters (2025b) EU to weaken more environment reporting rules, draft document shows. 8 December.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eReichard, J.S. et al. (2014) \u0026ldquo;Evidence for saltwater intrusion in the Upper Floridan aquifer on St. Catherines Island, Georgia.\u0026rdquo; Southeastern Geology 50(3):109\u0026ndash;122 (2014).\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003e\u003cem\u003eRobertson v. Methow Valley Citizens Council\u003c/em\u003e (1989) 490 U.S. 332.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eRoudgarmi P (2018) Cumulative effects assessment (CEA): a review. J Environ Assess Policy Manag 20(2):1850008. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1142/S1464333218500084\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1142/S1464333218500084\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eRuhl, J.B. and Salzman, J. (2010) Climate change, dead zones, and massive problems in the administrative state: a guide for whittling away. California Law Review, 98(1), pp. 59\u0026ndash;120.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eRuple, J.C. and Capone, M. (2016) NEPA\u0026mdash;Substantive effectiveness under a procedural mandate: Assessment of oil and gas EISs in the mountain west. Journal of Energy \u0026amp; Natural Resources Law, 34(3), pp. 298\u0026ndash;329.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eRutherford TK, Hammond TO, Foster AC et al (2026) Cumulative effects analysis to inform public land management in the United States: key characteristics and legal challenges. Environ Impact Assess Rev 117:108\u0026ndash;158. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1016/j.eiar.2025.108158\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1016/j.eiar.2025.108158\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eSadler, B. (1996) International Study of the Effectiveness of Environmental Assessment. Final Report. Ottawa: Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eScout Environmental (2023) Don't Overlook This Crucial Aspect of NEPA Analysis: Cumulative Impacts. Portland, OR: Scout Environmental.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eSeawright, J. and Gerring, J. (2008) Case selection techniques in case study research: a menu of qualitative and quantitative options. Political Research Quarterly, 61(2), pp. 294\u0026ndash;308.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eSeven County Infrastructure Coalition v. Eagle County, 605 U.S. 168 (2025)\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eSinclair, A.J., Doelle, M. and Duinker, P.N. (2017) Looking up, down, and sideways: reconceiving cumulative effects assessment as a mindset. Environmental Impact Assessment Review, 62, pp. 183\u0026ndash;194. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1016/j.eiar.2016.04.007\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1016/j.eiar.2016.04.007\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eSouth Florida Water Management District (1997) Pre-restoration Studies of the Channelized Kissimmee River, Volume I: Baseline Studies. West Palm Beach, FL: SFWMD.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eSouth Florida Water Management District (2021) Kissimmee River Restoration Project. West Palm Beach, FL: SFWMD.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eSouth Florida Water Management District (2024) Kissimmee River. West Palm Beach, FL: SFWMD.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eTC Energy (2021) TC Energy Confirms Termination of Keystone XL Pipeline Project. Calgary, AB: TC Energy Corporation.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eTedeschi P (2025) A Policy Scan of Cumulative Effects Assessment in Support of Jurisdictional Policy Reform. Alberta CA.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eTherivel, R. and Ross, B. (2007) Cumulative effects assessment: does scale matter? Environmental Impact Assessment Review, 27(5), pp. 365\u0026ndash;385.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eThe White House (2025) Fact Sheet: President Donald J. Trump approves Ambler Road Project to unlock Alaska\u0026rsquo;s mineral potential. The White House, Washington, DC. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://www.whitehouse.gov/fact-sheets/2025/10/fact-sheet-president-donald-j-trump-approves-ambler-road-project-to-unlock-alaskas-mineral-potential/\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"https://www.whitehouse.gov/fact-sheets/2025/10/fact-sheet-president-donald-j-trump-approves-ambler-road-project-to-unlock-alaskas-mineral-potential/\" targettype=\"URL\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e. Accessed 14 Feb 2026\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eToth, L.A. (1993) The ecological basis of the Kissimmee River restoration plan. Florida Scientist, 56(1), pp. 25\u0026ndash;51.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eTrilogy Metals Inc. (2025) Ambler Access Project Update: Federal Right-of-Way Reinstated. Corporate news release, 6 October.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eTrustees for Alaska (2020) Complaint for Declaratory and Injunctive Relief: \u003cem\u003eAlatna Tribal Council et al. v. Bureau of Land Management et al. U.S. District Court for the District of Alaska\u003c/em\u003e, 4 August 2020.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eTrump, D.J. (2025) Decision of the President and Statement of Reasons: Ambler Road Project Appeal Under ANILCA Section 1106(a). Washington, DC: White House, 5 October.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eUK Government (2023) Environmental Outcomes Reports: A new approach to environmental assessment (consultation). GOV.UK, 9 May.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eU.S. Army Corps of Engineers (2025) Army executes POTUS directive on Ambler Road Project. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Washington, DC. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://www.usace.army.mil/Media/News-Releases/News-Release-Article-View/Article/4325651/army-executes-potus-directive-on-ambler-road-project/\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"https://www.usace.army.mil/Media/News-Releases/News-Release-Article-View/Article/4325651/army-executes-potus-directive-on-ambler-road-project/\" targettype=\"URL\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e. Accessed 14 Feb 2026\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eU.S. Army Corps of Engineers (1962) Central and Southern Florida Project, Kissimmee River Basin: General Design Memorandum. Jacksonville, FL: Jacksonville District.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eU.S. Army Corps of Engineers (1976) Cross Florida Barge Canal Restudy Report: Summary. Jacksonville, FL: Jacksonville District.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eU.S. Army Corps of Engineers (1977) Final Environmental Impact Statement: Cross Florida Barge Canal. Jacksonville, FL: Jacksonville District.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eU.S. Army Corps of Engineers (1982) Red Dog Mine Access Road Section 404 Permit. Anchorage, AK: Alaska District.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eU.S. Army Corps of Engineers (2020) Record of Decision, Pebble Limited Partnership Permit Application. Anchorage, AK: Alaska District.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eU.S. Army Corps of Engineers (2024) Record of Decision: Review of the Application by Pebble Limited Partnership (POA-2017-00271) in Light of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's Clean Water Act Section 404(c) Final Determination. Joint Base Elmendorf-Richardson, AK: Alaska District, 15 April.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eU.S. Congress (1954) Flood Control Act of 1954, Public Law 780, 83rd Congress, 17 May.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eU.S. Department of State (2009) Final Environmental Impact Statement: Alberta Clipper Pipeline Project. DOS-2009-0040. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of State.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eU.S. Department of State (2011) Final Environmental Impact Statement for the Keystone XL Project. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of State.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eU.S. Department of State (2014) Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement for the Keystone XL Project. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of State.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eU.S. Environmental Protection Agency (2014) An Assessment of Potential Mining Impacts on Salmon Ecosystems of Bristol Bay, Alaska. EPA 910-R-14-001A. Seattle, WA: EPA Region 10.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eU.S. Environmental Protection Agency (2023) Final Determination of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Region 10 Pursuant to Section 404(c) of the Clean Water Act, Pebble Deposit Area, Southwest Alaska. Federal Register, 88, p. 7,407 (3 February).\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eU.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (1959) Fish and Wildlife Resources of the Central and Southern Florida Flood Control Project. Atlanta, GA: U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eU.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (2013) Biological Opinion for Enbridge Flanagan South Pipeline. USFWS Midwest Region. Washington, DC: USFWS.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eU.S. Forest Service (2017) Rosemont Copper Project Final Environmental Impact Statement, Coronado National Forest. Tucson, AZ: U.S. Forest Service, Coronado National Forest.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eU.S. Department of the Interior (1969) Environmental Impact of the Big Cypress Swamp Jetport (the \u0026ldquo;Leopold Report\u0026rdquo;), 155 p.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eU.S. Geological Survey (2014) Potential for Saltwater Intrusion into the Upper Floridan Aquifer in Hernando and Manatee Counties, Florida. USGS Scientific Investigations Report 2014\u0026ndash;5014. Reston, VA: USGS.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eYin, R.K. (2003) Case Study Research: Design and Methods. 3rd edn. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eYin, R.K. (2009) Case Study Research: Design and Methods. 4th edn. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eYin, R.K. (2018) Case Study Research and Applications: Design and Methods. 6th edn. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003c/ol\u003e"},{"header":"Tables","content":"\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eTable 1. Evolution of Cumulative Effects Definition in NEPA Law and Guidance, 1969\u0026ndash;2025\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003ctable border=\"1\" cellspacing=\"0\" cellpadding=\"0\" width=\"100%\" class=\"fr-table-selection-hover\"\u003e\n \u003ctbody\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 53px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eDate\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 187px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eRegulatory/Policy Action\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 280px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eCumulative Effects Definition\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 293px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eKey Implication for Practice\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 53px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e1969\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 187px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eNEPA enacted (42 U.S.C. \u0026sect; 4321 et seq.)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 280px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eNot yet formally defined; implicit in \u0026quot;environmental consequences\u0026quot;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 293px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eAgencies expected to consider indirect and broader effects\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 53px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e1978\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 187px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eCEQ regulations finalized (40 C.F.R. \u0026sect; 1508.7)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 280px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026quot;Cumulative impact: the impact on the environment resulting from the incremental impact of an action when added to other past, present and reasonably foreseeable future actions\u0026quot;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 293px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eCumulative effects become a defined, mandatory element of EIS process\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 53px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e1997\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 187px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eCEQ Considering Cumulative Effects Under NEPA handbook\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 280px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eClarifies cumulative effects extend across space, time, induced pathways, and interacting stressors; essential to understanding \u0026quot;full range of consequences\u0026quot;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 293px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eAgencies directed to examine regional trends, long-term accumulation, and cross-jurisdictional effects\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 53px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e1999\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 187px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eEPA Consideration of Cumulative Impacts in EPA Review of NEPA Documents guidance\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 280px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eEmphasis on analyzing combined effects across sectors and jurisdictions; cumulative assessment as non-negotiable\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 293px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003ePractitioners expected to integrate watershed-scale, airshed-scale, and ecosystem-level analyses\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 53px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e2020\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 187px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eCEQ revises NEPA regulations (85 Fed. Regist. 43304)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 280px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eDeletes explicit definitions of \u0026quot;direct,\u0026quot; \u0026quot;indirect,\u0026quot; and \u0026quot;cumulative\u0026quot; impacts; introduces \u0026quot;reasonably close causal relationship\u0026quot; test\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 293px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eCumulative effects no longer a distinct regulatory category; analysis becomes optional or narrowed\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 53px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e2024\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 187px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eCEQ revises regulations again; upheld in \u003cem\u003eSeven County Infrastructure Coalition v. CEQ\u003c/em\u003e (D.C. Cir. 2024)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 280px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eJurisdictional segmentation principle: agencies need only analyze effects within their statutory authority; cross-jurisdictional and temporally remote effects excluded unless mandated by agency\u0026apos;s organic statute\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 293px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eCumulative effects analysis effectively eliminated except where required by agency-specific enabling legislation; system-scale, cross-boundary, and long-term impacts routinely omitted from environmental review\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 53px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e2025\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 187px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eCEQ rescinds NEPA regulations\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 280px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eNo federal regulatory definition of cumulative effects; analysis entirely discretionary or governed only by agency-specific rules\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 293px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eCumulative effects analysis eliminated as a uniform federal requirement; environmental review fragmented across agencies with no consistent framework for system-scale impact assessment\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003c/tbody\u003e\n\u003c/table\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eTable 2. Comparative Case Study Matrix: Cumulative Effects Analysis and Project Decision Outcomes, 1962\u0026ndash;2025\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003ctable border=\"1\" cellspacing=\"0\" cellpadding=\"0\" width=\"100%\"\u003e\n \u003ctbody\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 12px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eCase\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 8px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eYear(s)\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 13px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eDirect Effects Alone\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 10px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eCEA Conducted?\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 20px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eKey CEA Finding\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 20px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eOutcome\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 17px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eDecision Authority\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eCross Florida Barge Canal\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e1962\u0026ndash;1971\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eWould support approval\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eLate/External\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eAquifer-scale saltwater intrusion risk; water supply threat to Florida population\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eDenied (halted by President Nixon, 1971)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eExecutive (President); quasi-EIS\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eEverglades Jetport\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e1968\u0026ndash;1969\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eWould support approval\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eYes (Leopold Report)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eInduced urban development; ecosystem destruction via hydrological change; regional effects\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eDenied (project abandoned 1969)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eExecutive/Federal support withdrawn\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eKissimmee River Channelization\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e1962\u0026ndash;1971\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eWould support approval\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eNo formal CEA\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eNone performed pre-project; basin-wide harms emerged post-construction\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eApproved; severe harms; $1B+ restoration required\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eCongressional; pre-NEPA\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003ePebble Mine\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e2010\u0026ndash;2023\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eCould support approval\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eYes (Corps EIS + EPA Bristol Bay Assessment)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eWatershed-scale copper bioaccumulation; salmon olfaction impacts; long-term fishery sustainability threatened\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eDenied (USACE 2020 ROD; EPA 404(c) 2023)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eUSACE + EPA (substantive 404(c))\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eKeystone XL Pipeline\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e2008\u0026ndash;2021\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eWould support approval\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eYes; focus shifted to lifecycle GHG emissions\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eCumulative climate emissions (billions CO₂-eq); project enables upstream oil sands expansion\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eCancelled (2021; project termination)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eNEPA/State Dept + court remands + President\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eAmbler Road\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e2015\u0026ndash;2025\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eWould support approval\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eYes; 2024 remand/SEIS on cumulative effects\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eCumulative induced mining impacts; caribou migration; Indigenous subsistence impacts; multi-mine district build-out\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eInitial:\u0026nbsp;\u003c/strong\u003eDenied (2024 BLM No Action)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eReversed:\u0026nbsp;\u003c/strong\u003eApproved (2025 ANILCA override)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eNEPA/BLM initially; Presidential ANILCA override\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003c/tbody\u003e\n\u003c/table\u003e"}],"fulltextSource":"","fullText":"","funders":[],"hasAdminPriorityOnWorkflow":false,"hasManuscriptDocX":true,"hasOptedInToPreprint":true,"hasPassedJournalQc":"","hasAnyPriority":false,"hideJournal":false,"highlight":"","institution":"","isAcceptedByJournal":false,"isAuthorSuppliedPdf":false,"isDeskRejected":"","isHiddenFromSearch":false,"isInQc":false,"isInWorkflow":false,"isPdf":false,"isPdfUpToDate":true,"isWithdrawnOrRetracted":false,"journal":{"display":true,"email":"[email protected]","identity":"environmental-management","isNatureJournal":false,"hasQc":true,"allowDirectSubmit":false,"externalIdentity":"emvm","sideBox":"Learn more about [Environmental Management](http://link.springer.com/journal/267)","snPcode":"267","submissionUrl":"https://submission.nature.com/new-submission/267/3","title":"Environmental Management","twitterHandle":"","acdcEnabled":true,"dfaEnabled":true,"editorialSystem":"em","reportingPortfolio":"Springer Hybrid","inReviewEnabled":true,"inReviewRevisionsEnabled":false},"keywords":"cumulative effects assessment, environmental impact assessment, NEPA, regulatory retrenchment, infrastructure projects, environmental governance, environmental law","lastPublishedDoi":"10.21203/rs.3.rs-8883186/v1","lastPublishedDoiUrl":"https://doi.org/10.21203/rs.3.rs-8883186/v1","license":{"name":"CC BY 4.0","url":"https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/"},"manuscriptAbstract":"\u003cp\u003eCumulative effects assessment (CEA) is widely recognized as both central to and persistently weak in environmental impact assessment, yet few studies test whether project outcomes would plausibly have differed without it. This article assembles counterfactual evidence for a defined class of U.S. federal actions\u0026mdash;major, contested infrastructure and resource development projects where cumulative effects substantially exceed direct impacts\u0026mdash;using six cases spanning 1962\u0026ndash;2025.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eEmploying a comparative retrospective design, the analysis triangulates regulatory precedents for comparable projects, documentary evidence from environmental impact statements, records of decision and court opinions, and post‑decision trajectories where harms emerged or were averted. It asks whether direct‑effects‑only analysis would have supported approval and whether CEA altered project trajectories by revealing system‑scale risks.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eIn all six cases, direct effects resembled those of projects that received federal authorization. In five, CEA\u0026mdash;addressing watershed‑scale contamination, induced development, lifecycle greenhouse gas emissions, or synergistic ecological change\u0026mdash;provided the analytical basis for denial, cancellation, or substantial constraint; in the sixth, the absence of CEA allowed basin‑wide degradation that later required extremely costly restoration. Across cases, the strength of documentary links between CEA findings and altered outcomes ranges from explicit legal citations to strong inferential support. These findings indicate that for contested projects where cumulative effects substantially exceed direct impacts, CEA has functioned as a necessary, though not independently sufficient, analytical condition for constraining system‑scale harm, clarifying what is at stake when cumulative analysis is weakened or removed from environmental review.\u003c/p\u003e","manuscriptTitle":"Cumulative Effects as a Decision‑Forcing Analysis: Lessons from Six U.S. Federal Infrastructure Projects","msid":"","msnumber":"","nonDraftVersions":[{"code":1,"date":"2026-02-20 09:59:32","doi":"10.21203/rs.3.rs-8883186/v1","editorialEvents":[{"type":"communityComments","content":0},{"type":"decision","content":"Revision requested","date":"2026-04-03T14:53:42+00:00","index":"","fulltext":""},{"type":"editorInvitedReview","content":"","date":"2026-04-02T07:43:55+00:00","index":"hide","fulltext":""},{"type":"reviewerAgreed","content":"157536725234150406565181111075609015023","date":"2026-03-06T02:23:11+00:00","index":"hide","fulltext":""},{"type":"editorInvitedReview","content":"","date":"2026-03-04T13:12:50+00:00","index":"hide","fulltext":""},{"type":"reviewerAgreed","content":"38418218480859990229563763142467841951","date":"2026-03-04T12:12:48+00:00","index":"hide","fulltext":""},{"type":"reviewerAgreed","content":"41405876611347103035176441036984207272","date":"2026-02-19T23:22:51+00:00","index":"hide","fulltext":""},{"type":"reviewersInvited","content":"","date":"2026-02-18T02:39:30+00:00","index":"","fulltext":""},{"type":"editorAssigned","content":"","date":"2026-02-18T02:36:06+00:00","index":"","fulltext":""},{"type":"checksComplete","content":"","date":"2026-02-16T02:45:35+00:00","index":"","fulltext":""},{"type":"submitted","content":"Environmental Management","date":"2026-02-15T02:08:02+00:00","index":"","fulltext":""}],"status":"published","journal":{"display":true,"email":"[email protected]","identity":"environmental-management","isNatureJournal":false,"hasQc":true,"allowDirectSubmit":false,"externalIdentity":"emvm","sideBox":"Learn more about [Environmental Management](http://link.springer.com/journal/267)","snPcode":"267","submissionUrl":"https://submission.nature.com/new-submission/267/3","title":"Environmental Management","twitterHandle":"","acdcEnabled":true,"dfaEnabled":true,"editorialSystem":"em","reportingPortfolio":"Springer Hybrid","inReviewEnabled":true,"inReviewRevisionsEnabled":false}}],"origin":"","ownerIdentity":"c7ec7429-5979-4ac0-bd18-a25eeb1cbf4b","owner":[],"postedDate":"February 20th, 2026","published":true,"recentEditorialEvents":[],"rejectedJournal":[],"revision":"","amendment":"","status":"under-review","subjectAreas":[],"tags":[],"updatedAt":"2026-04-22T16:08:42+00:00","versionOfRecord":[],"versionCreatedAt":"2026-02-20 09:59:32","video":"","vorDoi":"","vorDoiUrl":"","workflowStages":[]},"version":"v1","identity":"rs-8883186","journalConfig":"researchsquare"},"__N_SSP":true},"page":"/article/[identity]/[[...version]]","query":{"redirect":"/article/rs-8883186","identity":"rs-8883186","version":["v1"]},"buildId":"XKTyCvWXoU3ODBz1xrDgd","isFallback":false,"isExperimentalCompile":false,"dynamicIds":[84888],"gssp":true,"scriptLoader":[]}