Your assignment is to review an existing Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) or environmental assessment
(EA). By Wednesday, February 16, I would like a brief (1/2 page maximum) explanation of what you will be
doing; please submit this to the Canvas Case Study Prospectus dropbox. Include the name of the EIS or EA
you will be studying, a very brief description of the proposed action, and if its a large document, the aspect or
angle on which you will focus your review.
The paper should be typed, about five pages double–spaced, excluding figures and appendices (this is about 1500–
2000 words). The paper will be evaluated both on its substance how effectively and insightfully you review the
case, and on presentation grammar, spelling, organization, and so forth.
The paper can be structured as a standard term paper or it could be structured in the form of a response to
concerned officials, as if you were providing comments to an agency that generated a draft EIS. If you choose
this latter option, you will need to include a bit of additional information who you are and how/why you are
qualified to comment on the DEIS (this latter can be as simple as concerned citizen affected by the project).
Case Study Review:
The purpose of a case study is to critically review something, in this case an existing EIS. By critical review, I
mean critique (not necessarily criticize) the EIS in terms of its legal and scientific adequacy, completeness, quality
and so forth. This typically includes both what was done well and what falls short of expectations. You may need
a very brief review of the issue and decision–at–hand to provide a context for your critique, but don’t give me lots
of details about the particulars of the project. Tell me how well its authors assessed potential impacts, complied
with NEPA, WEPA, or other regulatory requirements, and provided useful information for decision–making.
The subject of your case study can be any draft or final EIS or EA (or equivalent; terminology varies). I would
prefer something within the last decade, though this is not a requirement. You can use non–U.S. examples as long
as you provide sufficient explanation of the legal requirements and scientific framework under which it is written.
When you are reviewing the analysis and presentation of data in the report, you can restrict yourself to fields/areas
that you have some familiarity with; for example, you are not expected to be able to critique scientific methods
that you don’t know. Particularly for large documents, you are not expected to review the entire document.
Examples of questions you could consider in your paper include:
– Does the EIS meet legal requirements spelled out in NEPA or similar documents?
– Are the assessment methods adequately documented and justified?
– Do the data meet the data quality criteria?
– Are analytic methods and models appropriate for the information needed?
– Is information presented objectively; does there appear to be a bias in the way it is generated and presented?
– Does the document appear to be justifying a forgone conclusion or is it providing information to help support
decision–making?
On this latter point, be careful how you critique an agency. It is okay for agencies to present their preferred
alternative. What may be considered prejudicial is if examination of alternatives is incomplete, misleading,
erroneous, and so forth.
2000 words). The paper will be evaluated both on its substance how effectively and insightfully you review the
case, and on presentation grammar, spelling, organization, and so forth.
The paper can be structured as a standard term paper or it could be structured in the form of a response to
concerned officials, as if you were providing comments to an agency that generated a draft EIS. If you choose
this latter option, you will need to include a bit of additional information who you are and how/why you are
qualified to comment on the DEIS (this latter can be as simple as concerned citizen affected by the project).
Case Study Review:
The purpose of a case study is to critically review something, in this case an existing EIS. By critical review, I
mean critique (not necessarily criticize) the EIS in terms of its legal and scientific adequacy, completeness, quality
and so forth. This typically includes both what was done well and what falls short of expectations. You may need
a very brief review of the issue and decision–at–hand to provide a context for your critique, but don’t give me lots
of details about the particulars of the project. Tell me how well its authors assessed potential impacts, complied
with NEPA, WEPA, or other regulatory requirements, and provided useful information for decision–making.
The subject of your case study can be any draft or final EIS or EA (or equivalent; terminology varies). I would
prefer something within the last decade, though this is not a requirement. You can use non–U.S. examples as long
as you provide sufficient explanation of the legal requirements and scientific framework under which it is written.
When you are reviewing the analysis and presentation of data in the report, you can restrict yourself to fields/areas
that you have some familiarity with; for example, you are not expected to be able to critique scientific methods
that you don’t know. Particularly for large documents, you are not expected to review the entire document.
Examples of questions you could consider in your paper include:
– Does the EIS meet legal requirements spelled out in NEPA or similar documents?
– Are the assessment methods adequately documented and justified?
– Do the data meet the data quality criteria?
– Are analytic methods and models appropriate for the information needed?
– Is information presented objectively; does there appear to be a bias in the way it is generated and presented?
– Does the document appear to be justifying a forgone conclusion or is it providing information to help support
decision–making?
On this latter point, be careful how you critique an agency. It is okay for agencies to present their preferred
alternative. What may be considered prejudicial is if examination of alternatives is incomplete, misleading,
erroneous, and so forth.