Scott Ryan P, Ulibarri Nicola, Scott Tyler A
Department of Political Science, Colorado State University, Fort Collins, Colorado, USA.
Department of Urban Planning & Public Policy, University of California, Irvine, Irvine, California, USA.
Risk Anal. 2023 May;43(5):994-1010. doi: 10.1111/risa.13977. Epub 2022 Jun 20.
Environmental impact assessment (EIA) procedures required in the United States and many other countries are often highlighted as a major hindrance to timely and efficient deployment of critical infrastructure projects. Under the U.S. National Environmental Policy Act, a more extensive environmental impact statement (EIS) review can take several more years and cost much more than a succinct environmental assessment (EA). This not only affects the project in question, but also likely informs how-or whether-additional projects are pursued. Thus, understanding key predictors of the EA versus EIS choice sheds light on supply-side considerations affecting infrastructure deficits. Using the case of NEPA reviews conducted for 244 transmission line projects between 2005 and 2018 by two U.S. federal agencies in the western United States, the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) and Department of Energy (DOE), this addresses the following question: What project features most predict whether EA or an EIS is used to assess a transmission line project? Drawing upon NEPA assessment guidance and agency NEPA records, we use a regression classification tree to analyze how protocols and project attributes relate to assessment choice. The result is essentially a null finding: transmission line length is by far the most important predictor of whether a project receives an extensive EIS or a shorter EA, with little predictive value provided by other attributes. While absolute project size undoubtedly influences impacts, the lack of further differentiation in what predicts use of EISs versus EAs suggests assessment does not simply respond to project details but also shapes proposal and design choices beforehand.
美国和许多其他国家要求的环境影响评估（EIA）程序，常常被视为关键基础设施项目及时、高效部署的主要障碍。根据美国《国家环境政策法》，一份更详尽的环境影响声明（EIS）审查可能要多花数年时间，且成本远高于一份简洁的环境评估（EA）。这不仅影响相关项目，还可能影响后续项目的推进方式或是否推进。因此，了解环境评估与环境影响声明选择的关键预测因素，有助于揭示影响基础设施短缺的供应端因素。以美国西部两个联邦机构——土地管理局（BLM）和能源部（DOE）在2005年至2018年期间对244个输电线路项目进行的《国家环境政策法》审查为例，本文探讨了以下问题：哪些项目特征最能预测是采用环境评估还是环境影响声明来评估输电线路项目？借鉴《国家环境政策法》评估指南和各机构的《国家环境政策法》记录，我们使用回归分类树来分析评估协议和项目属性与评估选择之间的关系。结果基本上是一个无效发现：输电线路长度是一个项目接受详尽的环境影响声明还是较短的环境评估的最重要预测因素，其他属性几乎没有预测价值。虽然项目的绝对规模无疑会影响影响程度，但在预测环境影响声明与环境评估的使用方面缺乏进一步区分，这表明评估不仅仅是对项目细节做出反应，还会预先塑造提案和设计选择。
