Đang chuẩn bị liên kết để tải về tài liệu:
NEPA and Environmental Planning : Tools, Techniques, and Approaches for Practitioners - Chapter 7

Chuẩn bị đánh giá môi trường Trong đầu những năm 1970, các cơ quan liên bang đã không có lựa chọn nhưng để chuẩn bị một báo cáo tác động môi trường (EIS) nhiều hành động không thể được loại trừ ngay lập tức là rõ ràng không có ý nghĩa. Do đó, EISs thường chỉ chuẩn bị để đạt được kết luận rằng không có tác động đáng kể tồn tại. Trong năm 1978, Hội đồng về chất lượng môi trường (CEQ) trả lời cho vấn đề này bằng cách tạo ra một đánh giá môi trường (EA), cấp độ. | 7 Preparing Environmental Assessments In the early 1970s federal agencies had no option but to prepare an environmental impact statement EIS as many actions could not be immediately excluded as being clearly nonsignificant. Consequently EISs were frequently prepared only to reach the conclusion that no significant impacts existed. In 1978 the Council on Environmental Quality CEQ responded to this problem by creating an environmental assessment EA the third level of National Environmental Protection Act NEPA compliance designed to provide an efficient mechanism for bridging the gap between the categorical exclusion CATX and EIS. When the CEQ created the EA it believed that the EIS would still be the principal instrument used for evaluating impacts. Instead EAs have become the principal instrument used for evaluating impacts. This observation is supported by the fact that on an average approximately 100 EAs are prepared for each EIS. Moreover the CEQ estimates that 30 000-50 000 EAs are prepared each year compared with just 300 to 500 EISs.1 This chapter describes the EA process and its documentation requirements. For a more indepth discussion of the EA process the reader is directed to the author s companion book Effective Environmental Assessments.2 7.1 OVERVIEW When challenged an EIS is often easier to defend than an EA because an EA must prove that none of the potential environmental impacts is significant or if one is that it can be adequately mitigated. In contrast there is no such requirement for an EIS. Additionally because of its smaller size a judge is more likely to take personal interest in an EA and actually read through it. Thus an EA may receive more rigorous judicial review than an EIS. Project advisories have taken note of this fact and have revised their strategies accordingly. As a result in recent years agencies have witnessed a movement away from challenging EISs as many opponents have refocused their efforts instead on EAs considering them to be