Summary of the National Environmental Policy Act and Implementing Regulations - Environmental Impact Analysis: Process and Methods - page 48

700
600
500
400
300
200
100
0
Federal agencies f iling 1% or more of EISs (see Table 2.5 for acronym identification)
FIGURE 2.1
Environmental impact statements (EISs) filed by federal agencies: June 2007 to June 2012.
declined in the period 1970-1997 (i.e., the quality of EISs was worse and the
degree of impact increased with time). The authors cite weak standardiza-
tion in EIS guidelines among agencies and field offices within agencies as a
major contributor to the lack of improvement in EIS quality. They also identi-
fied inconsistency in the rating system, possibly reflecting the lack of general
availability of the rating results from around the country to all agencies and
geographic regions, resulting in reduced coordination and sharing of lessons
learned. Tzoumis (2007) updated the quality and degree of impact evaluation
by evaluating the ratings of EISs since her earlier study. She anticipated an
improvement in both the quality and degree of adverse impact of the pro-
posed action because, among other factors, she and others have identified:
r Increased access to environmental information via the Internet
r An EIS and NEPA process that was more mature and standardized
r More sharing of lessons learned, particularly via the Internet
r An additional seven years of experience in both the methods of
impact prediction and monitoring of past projects
r More environmental science and policy training. Beginning in the
late 1990s, colleges and universities not only offered more environ-
mental science and policy courses but also began offering BS and
MS degrees in the field.