Environmental Policy Analysis and Practice

Chapter 7: Policy Measurement and Assessment Tools

Introduction This chapter focuses on eight process and analytical tools that are used to measure and assess the environmental impact of policies, their economic impact, and human reactions to them. Each of these tools is normally taught in a separate university course, sometimes multiple courses, and refresher courses are typical. I make no pretense of providing a comprehensive discussion, nor do I expect a reader who has finished the chapter to be able to critically evaluate a study that uses any of these tools. The goal is rather to recognize how these tools fit into environmental policy analysis and practice. Environmental Impact Tools Environmental impact tools include dozens of techniques and instruments developed by scientists, statisticians, and social scientists and applied to the task of assessing what happens when people are about to disturb the environment. Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) The EIA is a mechanism to ensure that major projects or programs undergo a comprehensive review before construction or implementation. The review entails a multidisciplinary, multi-agency, public assessment of the environmental , economic, health, and social impacts of individual projects or program proposals, as well as the consideration of alternatives. CONTEXT. The preparation of an environmental impact statement (EIS) was initially mandated at the federal level under P.L. -, the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), which took effect on January , . Broadly defined, the goal of this legislation was to “create and maintain conditions under which man and nature can exist in productive harmony and fulfill the social, economic, and other 187 7 Policy Measurement and Assessment Tools requirements of present and future generations of Americans” (P.L. -, Chapter , []). The EIS has been described as an action-forcing mechanism that orders federal agencies to act in accordance with the goals of NEPA (Anderson, ). Title I, Section ()(c) of NEPA requires all federal agencies to prepare an EIS on any “proposals for legislation and other major Federal actions significantly affecting the quality of the human environment” ( U.S.C. ). NEPA, specifically Section (c), requires that each EIS contain a detailed statement describing the following five factors: 1. The environmental impact of the proposed action 2. Any adverse environmental effects that cannot be avoided if the proposed action is implemented 3. Alternatives to the proposed action 4. The relationship between local short-term uses of the human environment and the maintenance and enhancement of long-term productivity 5. Any irreversible and irretrievable commitments of resources that would be involved if the proposed action is implemented Consideration of these five factors should enlighten those who review them as to whether a proposal adequately falls within environmental standards and is socially beneficial or whether one or more aspects are in potential violation of environmental standards and constitute grounds for halting or modifying development or implementation. NEPA was set up to be administered by the Council on Environmental Quality, which was established under Title II, Section , and then issued guidelines setting forth the rules and procedures agencies must follow to prepare an EIS. These guidelines, with the aid of over  years of legal interpretation, have defined the scope of the EIS document and the review responsibilities of the agencies. The requirement to prepare an EIS applies to a wide variety of actions by federal agencies. The following list points out some of the major actions that may require one (Bregman, ; Kreske, ): 1. Legislative proposals 2. Planned federal projects 3. Projects developed through federal grants 4. Changes in agency policies and operating procedures 5. Actions requiring federal licenses, permits, and other approvals 6. Actions with possibly controversial impacts In the original act, states and municipalities “owe no duties under NEPA, but may be subject to alternative environmental legislation fashioned after NEPA.” In fact, many states and local governments have NEPA progeny. State and local government EIA requirements vary. In general, some major differences involve less detailed content requirements, applicability to public or private actions, ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY ANALYSIS AND PRACTICE 188 different administrative or overseeing agencies, preemption with regard to NEPA (federal law will normally take precedence), and a different role for public participation. Most local EIS requirements are primarily directed at private development. The overseeing agencies are usually planning or zoning commissions or in some cases an environmental commission. The reader should note that environmental commissions may be purely advisory, whereas an environmental review component integrated into a planning and zoning commission may have legal authority to approve, deny...