326 ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENTS AND RELATED IMPACTS
proposal, and assess resultant values versus
existing quantitative standards. The latter
approach is clearly a meaningful measure of
determining environmental conditions.
d. Most municipalities do not have detailed base-
line data available in such environmental catego-
ries as ambient noise, air and water quality levels.
This condition makes it difficult and expensive
for the applicant to obtain a reliable data base,
and helps create the huge variation in real data
presentation found in impact statements.
e. Often distinction is not provided in the assess-
ment requirements for projects of vastly varying
magnitudes of scale and sensitivity. This gen-
erally results in unnecessary detail provided in
small projects, and insufficient detail provided
in more complex proposals.Because of the subjectivity noted above in attempting to
“adequately” respond to many municipal environmental ordi-
nances, many applicants are reluctant to commit sufficient
funds to insure the preparation of a comprehensive assess-
ment. As such, impact statement preparers may indirectly be
encouraged to prepare statements hastily in order to accelerate
the application process. Unfortunately, and perhaps unfairly,
this can appear to be a reflection on the assessment preparer
rather than on the process itself, which may help to foster
inadequate responses.SUGGESTED METHODOLOGIES FOR PROVIDING
APPROPRIATE EIS DOCUMENTATION AT THE
MUNICIPAL HEARINGSIn order to resolve some of the aforementioned difficulties
encountered when attempting to prepare an appropriate EIS,
the following suggestions are offered:1) The statement preparer should confer early in the
process with the client and all the other profession-
als involved to develop a scope of services needed
to prepare an adequate assessment independent
of the ordinance requirements. The scope should
include the professionals needed, the developed
and generated data required, the respective envi-
ronmental quality standards which exist, and the
general adversities that will have to be mitigated
if the proposal is to be approved.
2) The scope of effort should clearly reflect the
magnitude of the project, and should concentrate
on critical environmental issues associated with
the project.
3) The assessment specialist should meet early in
the application process with the individuals, e.g.,
Township Engineer, Environmental Consultant, and
Environmental Commission members who will
be directly involved with the review of the assess-
ment. These individuals should be questioned as totheir specific areas of concern, which, in turn, will
generate more comprehensive analyses in the EIS.
The reviewers may also be helpful in citing other
documents, reports, etc., known to the Township,
which may be useful reference materials for the
EIS preparer.
4) After the EIS is completed, the reviewers should
be provided copies well in advance of the formal
hearing on the application. Hopefully, any ques-
tions, differences, etc., can be resolved prior to the
hearing. Although this approach won’t always be
agreed to by the reviewers, it will establish a good
faith effort by the applicant to communicate and
resolve differences with the assessment reviewers.It should be appreciated that not all applications are
approved, and further, that assessments can be used (prop-
erly or improperly) as the main reason to reject an applica-
tion. Because of this fact, it is most important that the EIS be
well written and well documented such that it can prevail, if
needed, in an appeal situation where more objective review
may be involved. In essence, a good report should ultimately
stand the test of objective critical review even if that situation
never occurs.GENERAL GUIDELINES FOR PREPARING AND
PRESENTING ENVIRONMENTAL
IMPACT STATEMENTS AT THE PROJECT
(MUNICIPAL) LEVELPractice in the preparation of EISs at the project level has
generally focused on addressing the inventory, impacts, mit-
igations provided, and potential alternatives to the project
including the so-called “no build” alternative. In addition,
most EISs do not include a traffic or planning analysis as
these documents are normally prepared separately by traf-
fic and planning consultants. Generally, the concept of “no
build” in an EIS prepared for a project is not a realistic con-
sideration when one is hired specifically to defend a particu-
lar application. Furthermore, applicants desirous of receiving
approvals for a specific development plan on a particular site
normally are not seriously interested in any other permitted
or conditional use alternatives allowed in the zoning regula-
tions of the affected jurisdiction. As such, EISs are usually
prepared and reviewed basically as a go or no-go situation
for a specified development plan.
Regarding the levels of sophistication required in the
preparation of an EIS, it generally is a function of two fac-
tors, namely, the scale (i.e., magnitude) and sensitivity of
the project and the anticipated formal opposition to the proj-
ect. While theoretically, the level of effort required in an
EIS should be independent of the extent and nature of the
opposition, one must recognize that additional care in the
preparation is crucial when the statement can be expected to
stand the test of extreme scrutiny by individuals dedicated
to defeating the project by attacking and/or discrediting por-
tions of the EIS.C005_007_r03.indd 326C005_007_r03.indd 326 11/18/2005 10:23:30 AM11/18/2005 10:23:30 AM