Comparing the quality of draft environmental impact statements by agencies in the United States since 1998 to 2004

Abstract

Since the creation of the National Environmental Policy Act in 1970, the United States has required the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to rate draft environmental statements (DEISs) for both information adequacy and the impact of the preferred alternative on the environment. In a previous study by Tzoumis and Finegold (2000), these ratings were found to be declining from 1970 to 1997. This current study investigates if that trend continued from 1998 to 2004. In addition, the top producing agencies (the Forest Service, the Federal Highway Administration, Army Corp of Engineers, and the Bureau of Land Management) are compared for the achievement of DEIS ratings. The results show that when the ratings are disaggregated for these agencies, the results indicate that there continues to be weak performance. The DEISs continue to have insufficient and sometimes inadequate information. Agencies continue to propose projects that have environmental concerns and sometimes objections. The agencies have some similarities in not being able to achieve the highest ratings on a consistent basis over time. However, more disturbing is the profile of agencies that have episodic peaks of achieving the lowest ratings. Conclusions and recommendations are focused on the agencies who submit that DEISs and EPA. One major conclusion is to better track the ratings and make them collectively available for the public. Agencies are encouraged to develop a best management practice in preparing DEISs to promote agency learning.