Are environmental impact statements imperfect

Chris J. Durden drdn at
Mon May 8 00:28:51 EDT 2000

Seems to me that an EIS survey can only show what is present, not what is
absent, without significantly destroying the habitat. I have been appalled
at the superficiality of most EIS reports I have seen.
  Perhaps we need some mechanism for conservation organizational review of
........Chris Durden

At 09:28  7/05/00 -0400, you wrote:
>Doug raises the question about the reliability (and or veracity) of 
>consultants performing environmental impact statements (or similar 
>surveys) of land slated for development. 
>We are in the process of validating (or invalidating) an EIS submitted 
>for a 50A (20 Ha) plot of second growth woodland.  The EIS was a 
>travesty. It's not surprising that it might have overlooked a threatened 
>species of Skipper (since the listing hadn't occurred yet and the 
>skipper is only active for about two weeks in late summer), but they 
>listed fewer than 20 trees, 20 breeding birds, no herps etc. 
>It would be important, I think, if people become aware of EIS that are 
>similarly flawed, to do a side by side comparison and publish it. Or 
>perhaps we ought to collate these and do something big with it. 
>I remember someone once saying that EIS were a deadly enemy because once 
>completed they took on a life of their own and became official, 
>regardless of the credentials of people who challenged them. 
>Mike Gochfeld

More information about the Leps-l mailing list