EIS Review and Critique No. 2

Pick one of the topics you examined in Assignment No. 1, but different from the one you used in EIS Review No. 1.  Your briefing paper should be brief, well organized, and on time (your supervisor cannot change the meeting date.)  It should sum up the issues clearly and outline recommendation regarding use of the document (approval, modification, rejection).  Whenever appropriate, support your judgment with facts (e.g., reference to article of law, etc.)

This time, pay specific attention to how the preparers organized the information in the environmental setting, and how they could have used a social data collection instrument to assist in describing the environmental setting or identifying impacts.

Some factors to consider are listed below; understand that this is not a cookie-cutter exercise (same list as for EIS Review no 1).  Please add, subtract and reorganize as needed.  Written communication and critical analysis skills are essential for this assignment.
 

1. Did the preparers of the document adhere to the intent of NEPA (goals and objectives)?  List the intent and evaluate the document.
2. Did the preparers of the document follow the format suggested in the guidelines?  Evaluate the document in light of the legal requirements.
3. Who is the lead agency?  Who prepared the document?  List the preparers of the document and the reason for choice of a lead agency (triggering mechanism); was the preparation team interdisciplinary? which discipline(s) were missing?
4. Did the preparers of the document develop a reasonable range of alternative to evaluate?  List the alternatives; evaluate the effort; suggest improvements if needed.
5. Would the documents serve as a sufficient tool for making an informed decision?  List the strengths and weaknesses in term of decision support.
6. Were the level of the language and the vocabulary of a level sufficient for the public to understand?  (Eight grade comprehension is a common reference point.)
7. Evaluate the use and efficiency of graphics, maps, figures, data, etc., employed to assist in communicating  the information developed in the document.  Give examples of good and bad use of non-verbal communication; suggest improvements to assist a reader in understanding the issues, findings, and solutions.
8. Did the preparers show evidence that they asked and included comments from federal agencies?  Discuss concerns expressed by other agencies.
9. Was there evidence that the preparers of the document included all the public in their efforts?  Discuss substantial issues raised by the public.
10. Discuss the technique or methodology used for evaluating alternatives.
11. Did the preparers use a Benefit/Cost ratio as a criterion for selecting the alternative of choice?  Did you agree with their approach to the use of B/C ratio?  Suggest improvements and/or alternative economic criteria.
12. Was a critical piece of technical data missing, which would have assisted in the EIS process?  What should have been done to develop this data?
13. Who are the major stakeholders and issues in this particular project (beneficiaries and impacted public, impacted environmental components)?  Discuss importance, impact and response.
14. Don't forget to include a summary paragraph (executive summary) describing the quality, legal adequacy, and value for decision-making for the EIS.  This might be all your supervisor reads.

This briefing document should be 5 to 7 pages long, with 1.5 line spacing (10 to 12 pts font).  Present your document in memorandum format.

Due Date: Monday February 8, 1999 (by 5:00 PM).