Talk:Environmental impact statement

United States: Government Mid‑importance

	United States portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by WikiProject U.S. Government (assessed as Mid-importance).

Environment Mid‑importance

	Environment portal This environment-related article is part of the WikiProject Environment to improve Wikipedia's coverage of the environment. The aim is to write neutral and well-referenced articles on environment-related topics, as well as to ensure that environment articles are properly categorized. Read Wikipedia:Contributing FAQ and leave any messages at the project talk page.EnvironmentWikipedia:WikiProject EnvironmentTemplate:WikiProject EnvironmentEnvironment articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Law Low‑importance

	Law portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Law, an attempt at providing a comprehensive, standardised, pan-jurisdictional and up-to-date resource for the legal field and the subjects encompassed by it.LawWikipedia:WikiProject LawTemplate:WikiProject Lawlaw articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

I disagree with the section titled "Environmental Impact Assessments"[edit]

To quote that section:

The term "environmental impact assessment" is often confused with an environmental impact statement, but it is not the same thing within the US context. The term environmental impact assessment is used by the US Environmental Protection Agency in relation to the monitoring of toxins.

During my working career as an engineer, I either led or participated in the development of at least 24 Environmental Impact Assessments/Statements involving major industrial projects in many different cities and states in the United States. It has been my experience that the two terms Environmental impact statement and Environmental impact assessment are very commonly used as if they were complete synonomous ... regardless of any legal differentiation that may or may not exist.

I am deleting the entire section. If you disagree, please discuss your disagreement here before doing any reverting. Thanks, - mbeychok 23:18, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

EIS/EA clarification?[edit]

The "Environmental impact assessment" page begins by defining Environmental Impact STATEMENT... Isn't an EIS *different* than an EA (Environmental Assessment)? And where does the 3-word term "Environmental Impact ASSESSMENT" come in to play? Seems like someone needs to look at both these pages (and these THREE terms) and clarify... and maybe delete the "Environmental impact assessment" page (or redirect it to the [now-nonexistent] EA page)? (...and it sounds like from previous discussion on the EIS page that EIA is yet a FOURTH term..."???") philiptdotcom 06:51, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I certainly echo these statements. After reading the EIS page, it is found to contain some elements common to the broader U. S. NEPA process of environmental impact assessment, whether this stops at the EA stage with a FONSI or procedes to an EIS. Meanwhile, the EA information is placed under the US section of the "Environmental impact assessment" page.

It might be helpful to coordinate info under this hierarchy:--Paulsuckow (talk) 22:59, 13 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Environmental impact assessment

Field of environmental impact assessment
Inclusive of the human environment
Natural environment effects
Socioeconomic effects

History of environmental impact assessment
NEPA of 1969, enacted in 1970, regulations enforced 1978
Application of environmental impact assessment
Individual country entries alphabetically, including
E. U.
Here is would be appropriate to capitalize EIA
The Netherlands would be a subsection...others?
United States
main article: National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA)
known in the U. S. generically as "environmental review" or the "NEPA process"
What is subject to NEPA -
direct federal agency actions,
actions funded in any amount by federal agecies,
actions permitted by federal agencies per Code of Federal Regulations.
NEPA Implementation
CEQ created, the regulations it prescribed are found at 40 CFR 1500-1508
Each Federal Agency then codified its own procedures and requirements for in CFR
NEPA process
proposal and scoping
early involvement of environmental analysis and decisionmaking
aggregation upon geographic or functional bases
aggregation of logical parts of a composite of contemplated actions
anticipating multiple year funding
emphasizing important issues deserving study, deemphasizing the rest
intergovernmental cooperation designating a responsible entity, or lead agency
tiering of complex environmental reviews
limitations on activities while the NEPA process is satisfied
determine level of environmental review (similar to annexes in E. U.)
Exemption determined for activity categories with no physical impact
Categorical exclusion of common categories reviewed under NEPA in the past
See CE article?
Environmental Review Record of processes and determinations
Interdisciplinary studies
Environmental Assessment
see EA article?
FONSI
Notice of Intent to Prepare EIS
Environmental Impact Statement
try to disambiguate between the NEPA process and the EIS
focus on the EIS process

NEPA

main article: Environmental impact assessment
This article is pretty good as it stands, perhaps add a bit bout exempt from NEPA

CE, Categorically Excluded from NEPA process, also known as CatEx
main article: National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA)
whether proposed action will require further compliance under related laws
EA, Environmental Assessment finding no significant impact (FONSI)
main article: National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA)
purpose: to see whether significant impacts require EIS
generic structure
existing and projected conditions
all potential impacts beneficial or adverse
significance of effects on or from the human environment
whether proposed action will require further compliance under related laws, EO
examine proposal modification to reduce adverse impacts and improve beneficial impacts
examine alternatives to the proposal itself
finding of no significant impact (FONSI), or intent to prepare EIS
EIS
main article: National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA)
Purpose
NOI/EIS
CEQ format
Lead agency designation
Public hearings and meetings
DEIS and FEIS
monitoring that decisions reached are carried out — Preceding unsigned comment added by Paulsuckow (talk • contribs) 22:56, 13 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This article is on an issue of U.S. law and shouldn't represent "a wolrdwide view of the subject."[edit]

An environmental impact statement is a creature of U.S. law. It does not, and should not "represent a worldwide view of the subject." This subject is U.S. specific and should not represent a worldwide view. If there title of the article was "U.S. Supreme Court" the article would not need to represent a worldwide view. Or if the article was on Sarbanes-Oxley, it specifically concerns U.S. law.

Environmental Impact Statements are creatures of U.S. law and should be treated as such. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.49.90.32 (talk) 04:04, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Point well taken. This article is about EISs under US NEPA. I therefore added a hatnote directing readers to the Environmental impact assessment article for international coverage. I also transferred the content relating to the European Union to the Environmental impact assessment article. Walshga (talk) 06:01, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Duration & Cost[edit]

One of the common criticisms of the EIS process I have heard is that "waste a lot of time and money." Is there any information available about how much EIS's cost and how long they take to perform?Litch (talk) 16:51, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. 72.234.110.47 (talk) 23:11, 20 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Cons[edit]

Pros listed, but cons are not. It seems quite POVish. What impact does all the bureaucracy behind it have? Do bigger problems from wealthy corporations go undisturbed while the less powerful or those seeking to compete with existing powerful companies have a disadvantage? Despite what damage their competitors may be doing already to the environment? It's presented as though there's no downside to the requirements, but I know of at least one case where a ferry boat was not approved that would compete with passenger airlines and powerful shipping industries that already exist. Yet travel by boat would certainly be much less harmful for the environment than existing air travel. Such realities are completely ignored.

72.234.110.47 (talk) 23:11, 20 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Fracking Requirements[edit]

Are proposed fracking wells required to file an environmental impact statement as part of their planning an disclosure process? If so, then is this effective in resolving the environmental debate over the safety of fracking? If not, why is this exempt? Thanks! --Lbeaumont (talk) 16:25, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Significant overlap with National Environmental Policy Act page[edit]

The information contained in this Environmental Impact Statement page substantially repeats (and sometimes adds to) information that can be found on the National Environmental Policy Act page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Environmental_Policy_Act

Since an EIS is just one aspect of the NEPA process, it seems that most of the NEPA information should be moved to the NEPA page.

Kimcarlson (talk) 00:19, 23 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Environmental impact statement. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100422121019/http://ceq.hss.doe.gov:80/Nepa/regs/ceq/1502.htm to http://ceq.hss.doe.gov/Nepa/regs/ceq/1502.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:59, 24 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified (January 2018)[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Environmental impact statement. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:52, 22 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]