Encyclopedia of Environmental Science and Engineering, Volume I and II

325

ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENTS AND RELATED IMPACTS

BACKGROUND

This author has previously written on the subject of environ-

mental assessment by outlining its typical content require-

ments, as well as the types of expertise that are required in

the preparation of an Environmental Impact Statement(EIS).

The author has also discussed some of the problems associ-

ated with the EIS process and has provided some sugges-

tions in improving the quality of EIS documents. This paper

examines the role of the EIS at the project level, where ulti-

mately, most decisions of project approvals or denials are

made in the 1990s by municipal reviewers rather than by

state or federal agencies.

INTRODUCTION

With the advent of the National Environmental Policy Act

(i.e., NEPA) in 1969, the requirements for environmen-

tal impact reporting was originally restricted by the Act to

Federal projects, or projects subsidized in whole or in part by

Federal funding. Since NEPA, many states and municipali-

ties have developed their own environmental impact require-

ments to aid in the review of projects under their jurisdiction.

As a result of the above evaluation, which has coincided

with a general decentralization of power under the Reagan

administration, the approval or denial of proposals often rest

with local review of the environmental impacts of the spe-

cific project regardless of its funding source (i.e., public or

private). The evolution of ultimate decision-making at the

local level is inevitable when one considers that the most

potentially noxious sitings (e.g., nuclear power plants,

resource recovery facilities, airports, etc.) would be accepted

more critically by municipalities serving as potential host

communities than by state or federal entities. Since environ-

mental standards promulgated at the federal and state levels

can be adopted or be made more restrictive at the municipal

level, the opportunity presents itself for municipalities to uti-

lize local environmental impact ordinances to tightly regulate

land-use development within their boundaries. Even in cases

where states have the power to “force” sitings in munici-

palities in order to insure the health and well being of all its

constituents, most have tried, for political reasons, to justify

their positions through an environmental review process,

which, in many cases, has caused extensive delays and/or

total abandonment of such sitings. As such, the preparation

and presentation of environmental impact statements at the

municipal level have often become the most critical element

in the consideration and fate of many development projects.

VARIATION IN EIS REPORTING AT THE

MUNICIPAL LEVEL

The quality of EIS reporting at the municipal level often

exhibits tremendous variations for one or more of the fol-

lowing reasons:

1) The expectations of municipalities relating to EIS

documentation varies from it merely being a for-

mality with the application process to the docu-

ment being a pivotal component in the approval

or denial of the project. In municipalities where

growth is encouraged and variances to the zone

plane are given consideration with regularity, the

environmental impact statement requirements may

be minimal. In contrast, in municipalities which

practice “no-growth” policies and/or rigidly pro-

tect their zone plan, the review and critique of the

EIS often is used as a weapon for denial or delay

of applications.

2) The assessment ordinances, as promulgated, often

allow too much subjective interpretation insofar

as EIS preparation is concerned. Examples are as

follows:

a. Normally there are no regulations specified for

the preparers of component portions of the EIS

to be identified or to provide their credentials

pertinent to the sections they have prepared.

b. There generally are no guidelines to provide

the applicant with information as to the extent

of documentation required to deem an EIS

“complete” for submission purposes.

c. Specific environmental quality standards to

be maintained are often either not specified

in the ordinances, or are written in qualitative

rather than quantitative terms. This encourages

assessors to respond to environmental issues in

qualitative terms rather than to conduct proper

monitoring programs to establish baseline

data, project thereon the added impact of the

C005_007_r03.indd 325C005_007_r03.indd 325 11/18/2005 10:23:30 AM11/18/2005 10:23:30 AM