1 / 22

ESP 179 Environmental Impact Analysis Professor Quinn Spring 2008

ESP 179 Environmental Impact Analysis Professor Quinn Spring 2008. NEPA, CEQA, and “Best Available Science” April 10, 2008. CEQA and NEPA. NEPA analysis is required when a federal agency is co-lead project requires a discretionary federal permit, authorization, or funding

diem
Download Presentation

ESP 179 Environmental Impact Analysis Professor Quinn Spring 2008

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. ESP 179Environmental Impact AnalysisProfessor QuinnSpring 2008 NEPA, CEQA, and “Best Available Science” April 10, 2008

  2. CEQA and NEPA • NEPA analysis is required when • a federal agency is co-lead • project requires a discretionary federal permit, authorization, or funding • federal land is involved • Research, hearings, and document preparation may be shared • Agencies may prepare a joint Neg Dec and FONSI • NEPA documents may satisfy CEQA • with notice and full circulation and comment • CEQA documents do not ordinarily satisfy NEPA

  3. CEQA Lead Agency Responsible Agency Categorical Exemption Notice of Preparation Initial Study Negative Declaration Environmental Impact Report Findings NEPA Lead Agency Cooperating Agency Categorical Exclusion Notice of Intent Environmental Assessment Finding of No Significant Impact Environmental Impact Statement Record of Decision Terminology

  4. Take Home Messages • NEPA and CEQA are primarily procedural • Don’t mess up the procedure! • Deadlines • Required elements • Good checklists are available – follow them! • Penalty is usually delay • Reworkings can’t be accelerated • Expensive – opportunity costs • Disclosure is your friend • Argue over the policy, not the facts • Try to make the argument economic

  5. Take Home Messages • The test of adequacy is about more balance and “good faith” than actual correctness • Effective assessments minimize advocacy • Be respectful toward comments and critiques • Exhaustive treatment is not required • Set the terms of debate • A good project description is essential • Scope early and often • When possible, engage possible critics and reviewers early

  6. Choose Alternatives Effectively • Major viewpoints should be represented • Again, the importance of scoping and consultation • Avoid polarization • Capture the range of options, but not necessarily every feasible option • Bracket preferred alternatives

  7. Practical Considerations • Strive for “one-stop shopping” • NEPA documents can satisfy CEQA • Many other federal actions satisfy NEPA • Use the same data and assessments in permit applications (e.g., NPDES, incidental take permits, etc.) • In practice, detailed policy is set by case law • Don’t skimp on lawyers • The future of the landscape is largely determined on Tuesday nights

  8. “Best Available Science” “Junk Science”

  9. “Peer Review is the Gold Standard”

  10. Peer Review • “The worst system except for all others” • A relatively recent development in academic and research agency practice • Literature is fragmented • Paper-counting and LPUs • Hypothesis testing • Little funding or professional recognition for survey and monitoring work • Often not useful for comparative analyses • meta-analysis

  11. Finding Peer-Reviewed Literature • Where do you go? • Access?

  12. Non-Peer-Reviewed sources • (Everything that is actually useful?)

  13. Non-Peer-Reviewed sources • Government databases • Private data resources • Repackaging public data • Grey literature • EIRs, EISs, permit documents… • Imagery • (our next few sessions)

  14. Custom Surveys • Biological resources • Hydrology and groundwater • Soils • Hazards • Visitation and public use • Traffic • Noise • Archeological/cultural/historical • Environmental Justice considerations • (and…) Try to identify surveys needed at the scoping stage

  15. The Larger Picture Framing the question – Are we talking about “rights,” or “costs and benefits”?

  16. Environmental protection, properly done, responds to consumer demand, creates economic benefits, promotes economic growth. • Clean air or a new DVD player? • Which creates more jobs? • Demand must be aggregated (Public Markets) • Private markets fail to maximize economic value to the public because of externalities

  17. Mechanisms for expressing public demand • Exactions • Top-down regulation • Typically based on perceived rights • Typically loosely connected to economic values • Political controls • Litigation over science • Transparency and negotiation • Often results in negotiations based on economic preferences • Political and economic controls • Litigation over process

  18. Can we negotiate about dollars rather than rights? Why would you want to?

  19. Market-like mechanisms • Transfer Payments • Examples • Central Valley water rights • Rice burning • Insurance-like mechanisms • Providing regulatory certainty • NCCPs, Safe Harbor agreements • Cap and trade • Successful markets require transparency!

  20. “CEQA is your friend” -- Steve Blum • Disclosure forces stakeholders and agencies to address uncertainty • Disclosure creates accountability • Conflict Resolution -- Disclosure may help shift arguments from rights-based to economics-based • economic arguments can often be solved without litigation • Good Science may even result in better policy

More Related