PB-223 748
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REQUIREMENTS IN THE STATES
CENTER FOR CALIFORNIA PUBLIC AFFAIRS
JUNE 1973
DISTRIBUTED BY:
National Technical Information Service
U. S. DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
-------
SELECTED WATER
RESOURCES ABSTRACTS
INPUT TRANSACTION FORM
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REQUIREMENTS "IN THE
W
PB-223 748
T. C. Tryzna
9. Organization
Center for California Public Affairs, Claremont,
California
EPA Contract 68 01 1818
Environmental Protection Agency, Socioeconomic Studies Series,
Report EPA-R5-73-024, June 1973, 20 p.
The requirements of Environmental Impact Analyses for each of the various states
has been surveyed. In eight states and in Puerto Rico, impact statements are a
statutory requirement; In four states, they are required by Executive Order. In
a few cases, the impact statement requirement extends to local as well as state
agencies. (EPA)
*Water quality standards, *State governments, *Environmental effects, Legislation,
Legal aspects, Water quality control, Water Quality Act
*Environmental impact statements, Water quality requirements, Ecological
impact, *Environmental Protection Act
05G, 06E
Send To
WATER RESOURCES SCIENTIFIC INFORMATION CENTER
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
WASHINGTON. D.C. 20240
-------
EPA-R5-73 - 024
June 1973
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT
REQUIREMENTS IN THE STATES
By
Thaddeus C. Tryzna
Contract No. 68-01-1818
Program Element 1H1095
Project Officer
Harold V. Kibby
Implementation Research Division
Washington Environmental Research Center
Washington, D.C. 20460
Prepared for
Office of Research and Development
U.S Environmental Protection Agency
Washington, D.C. 20460
‘ c i
-------
RESEARCH IEPOA’TING SERIES
Research reports of the Office ot Research and
Monitoring 0 Environmental Protection Agency, have
been grouped into five series 0 These Live brcad
categories were established to facilitate further
development and application of environmental
technology. Elimination of traditional grouping
was consciously planned to foster techno]ogy
transfer a d a maximum interface in related
fields. The five serieS are:
1. Environmental Health Effects Research
2. EnvirOnfd eflt1 l Protection Technology
3. Ecological Research
t • Environmental Monitoring
5. socioeconomiC Environmental Studies
This report has been assigned to the SOCIOECONOMIC
ENVIRONMENTAL STUDIES series. This series
describes research on the socioeconomic impact of
environmental problems. This covers recycling and
other recovery operations with emphasis on
monetary incentives. The nonscientific realms of
legal syster S 0 cultural values, and business
systems are also involved 0 Because of their
interdiscipliPlar? scope 0 system evaluations and
environfrental management reports are included in
this series.
-------
EPA Review Notice
Thi report hee been reviewed by the Environmental Protection
Agency ind ipproved for publication. Approval does not signify that
:ha con c nte neceseartly reflect the views and policies of the
Cnvironment il Protection Agency, nor doe. mention of trade names
or commarci i1 products constitute endorsement or recoininendatlon
of W 0
11
-------
ABSTRACT
The requirements of Environmental Impact Analysis for each
of the various states has been surveyed. In eight states and in
Puerto Rico impact 5tateznents are a statutory requirement in
four states they are required by Executive Order. In a few cases,
the impact statement requirement extends to local, as well as state
agencies.
iii
-------
Twelve states and the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico have adopted broad
requirements for environmental impact statements on state actions
analogous to the statements required on federal actions by the National
Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). In eight of these states and in Puerto
Rico, impact statements are a statutory requirement; in the other four
states, they are required by executive order. ] [ n a few cases, the impact
statement requirement extends to local, as well as state, agencies.
Broad environmental impact statement (ElES) requirements have been under
ccnsideration in another 21 states and the Dis ict of Columbia. In addi-
tion, eight states have implemented E]LS procedures for certain types of
proposals, including those for s ich projects as power plants, coastal
same development, wastewater treatuient p lants, and highway construction.
The stabi of EIS requirements and proposals in each state is described
in the Appendb .
State ELS requirements for the most part are modeled on Section 102 (2) (C)
of NEIPA, However, there are some significant differences in approach
among the states 0 Some states apply the requirement to local, as well as
state, agencies. Some states require impact statements for private
actions for which a government permit is required, in addition to govern-
menta]l aetions. Also the states vary considerably in providing for
central administration of the E]IS process, in their mechanisms for
encouraging p iblic participation, and in their working definitions of what
constitutes a “major” and “significant” action.
Most of the state provisions appear to limit applicability of the EIS require-
ment to “agencies of the state, “without indicating whether this description
is intended to encompass governmental units below the highest level.
Only California, Massachusetts, and Washington specifically include local
agencies. NoMh Carolina’s law permits local governments to require an
E lS. However, only one small town has done so. The Governor of Hawaii
is proposing legislation that would require impact statements of county,
as well as state, agencies. In practice, the other states limit the require-
ment to state agencies.
Whether E]fS requirements apply to private activities is also left unclear
in most of the state provisions. California, Montana and Puerto Rico
seem to be the only jurisdictions that specifically require an EIS for
proposed private actions for which a governmental permit is necessary.
North Carolina permits local governments to require an EIS for private
projects involving at least two acres; however, as noted, only one town
has done this. The Indiana aw specifically prohibits agencies from
—1—
-------
m ct statement “for the issuance of a license or permit.”
io s Department of Natural Resources is authorized to request
an ) I ; ‘an applicant for a permit or statutory approval” under the
Dne s purview. Hawaii’s Governor is supporting legislation to
er ipcwer state and county agencies to require EISs from the non-govern-
sector.
1 m jo problem in implementing state EIS requirements in many states
t little provision has been made to enforce them. Typically, an
uiLerage cy committee, a state environmental council, the state planning
age cy or the natural resources department is given the responsibility
c ’! “coordinating” the program and reviewing impact statements, but
it zuilt any specific authority to insure that all agencies are complying
with EIS requirements. The result is that some agencies are slow to
estab is , the necessary procedures and, in the measured words of one
smte official, “implementation is uneven.”
A other problem is encouraging public participation. A major purpose
o th process is to expose proposed actions affecting the environ-
to public scrutiny. criticism and discussion before decisions are
ir ade. Most of the states appear to recognize the need for publicizing
impact statements. However, presumably because of the cost involved,
oue iublishes a periodical listing of pending statements analogous to
e C ’. S. Cc dil on Environmental Quality’s 102 Monitor . The EIS
guidelines issued by some states specify that interestecFcitizens’ groups
are to be informed or provided with copies of draft impact statements.
Washington’s guidelines state that draft statements “should be described
in an frLformation news release to the newsp 1per(s) in the area that
would be affected by implementation of the proposal.” Puerto Rico has
used display advertising in newspapers for this purpose, but is discontin-
uing the practice becanse of the cost.
Perlaps V- mos . difficult problem in administering EIS requirements is
def ag what constitutes a “major” action “significantly affecting the
quaiky of the human environment.” Almost without exception, the
state provisions use these words, taken from Section 102 (2) (C) of NEPA.
The federal guidelines (36 Federal Register ‘7724-7729, April 23, 1971)
are used as a model by most states. Wisconsin, in fact, includes a
reference to the federal guidelines in its statute. While laws and guidelines
can specify broad categories and special classes of activity for which an
EIS is reqUred (Puerto Rico, for example, makes special reference to
mining concessions), in practice it is no pcssible to anticipate every
case in wLch an impact statement might be desirable and, barring legal
action, Le decision as to whether a proposal is “major” and “significant”
-------
is left to the dlscretic n of ‘esponsible official.
Two other problems experienced by states in administering EIS programs
are their cost and the lack of experts to prepare and review reports.
Several states report that the cost of processing impact statements has
considerably exceeded the estfuinates of legislators and the agencies’ expec-
tations. Governor Rockefeller gave cost as one of the reasons for
vetoing a bill requiring an EIES irocedure in New York: “The bill is costly.
This legislation would require the state to add an undeterminable number
of new positions and other cc t . . .]tt would add these costs at a time of
protracted fiscal difficulty for the state.” The paucity of “environmentally
trained personnel” is pointed to as a continuing problem by Montana’s
Environmental Quality Council, for example, and the head of the environ-
mental advisory council of Pennsylvania, which has no EIS requirement,
considers the “availability of expertise” to be one of the major problems
that must be resolved before his organization would agree to adopting the
procedure at the state lev L
The following summary of state environmental impact statement require-
ments is based on information received from cognizant state agencies,
environmental res rch centers, citizens’ groups, and published sources
as of March 1, 1973:
CAX DFORN]rA
The California Environmental Quality Act of 1970 (Public Resources Code
Sec. 21000 et. seq.) (CEQA) was the first state law to establish an ETS
requirement patterned after NEPA (Puerto Rico’s law preceded it, however),
and it is the broadest in effect. CEQA applies both to state and local
agencies, and to private actions for which a governmental permit is neces-
sary. California’s act probably has received more attention in the national
press than any other state environmental policy act because of the Calif or-
nia Supreme Court’s ruling in the Friends of Mammoth v. Mono County
case. In that case, the court was 1 MTo rule on whether a local agency
was required to submit an EIES before it issued a conditional use or building
permit. Holding that an impact report is mandatory before a governmental
entity can act either for itself or in approving private projects, the court
said:
These reports compel state and local agencies to consider
the possible adverse consequences to the environment of
the proposed activity and to record such impact in writing.
In an era of commercial and industrial expansion in which
the environment has been repeatedly violated by those who
are oblivious to the ecological well-being of society, the
significance of this legislative act cannot be understated.
3—
-------
%e o . - so :;served that NEPA was used as a pattern for the Califor-
that the key provision in both acts, the E)IS, was the same,
I h cci-, erved that federal gu ehnes would require an impact report
s r . r cfrc mstances. Thus, it held that state and local agencies
must i1e an EIS be oire acting on a private project.
Sc r e v .opment int ests and lc aI officia’s had understood the law to
a ly y to public pr iects, and this ruling caused some confusion over
e status of private projects already in process. The Legislature amended
December 1972 to impose a 12O =day moratorinm for private anC
some bLkc projects bject to the law, and it granted retroactive exempticms
to pa r ate and sor ie public projects. However, in general, the law as
in 1970 remains in force 0
The Of i e of Planning and Research, part of the Lieutenant Governor’s
‘)Itfice, is responsib1e for preparation and development of objectives,
:ite 2L and procedures to implement CEQA, and considers proposals for
tegorical exemption from EIS rs ufrements. The Secretary of the
Ca nia Resources Agency is charged with adopting guidelines for the
mplter. tation of those requirements, including a ‘Thiding that each
categorical exemption will not have a significant effect on the environment.”
cal governments are required to adopt similar guidelines and procedures
by April 6, 1973.
CONNECTiCUT
A bill ?or a state environmental policy act, including an EIS requirement,
rias passed by the General Assembly in , but it was vetoed by Governor
Thomas Meskifl, who said it presented ‘ adm nistrative problems of the
1 fighest o der.” O i October 4, 1972, G ’ r Meskill issued Executive
(C)rder No, 16, wh ch establishes require ’e is similar to those that would
aave been man4ated by the vet ied legisla Jom, but applies only to state
projects nd ict o private p ec e or wb c a state permit is required.
These re 1rcEm ’1tc are si’nilar Thc’ der Ni PA. Impact statements
re rev ewed by tl’e C cticut C u c.Ji o nvironmental Quality, the
Department of Envfronmen ai P ote tion, and the State Planning Council.
The State Planning Covncil i , ci arged it recommending to the Governor
whatever action is req ’ed on p opos d sta±e actons, Guidelines are in
draft form.
HAWA]
HIawaii s EIS requ renient, currently limited to state agency projects, was
establishe y an cxecutive order signed by Governor John A. Burns on
August 23, 1971. The review process is administered by the Office of
Environmental Quality Control in the Governor’s Office. To date, statements
submitted have dealt with such matters as s a :c. sponsored housing projects,
-------
roads and highways and related facilities, boat launch ramps and harbors,
school sitmg and construction, state park development, and dredging.
Guidelines are in draft form.
A bill (S. B. 36) has been introduced in the 1973 session of the Legislature
to enact into law basically the same procedures set down in the executive
order. Another bill is being drafted to require both state and county
agencies to evaluate the environmental impact of all projects involving
state lands or funds and/or county lands or funds, and empower state and
county agencies to require impact statements from the non-governmental
sector. Both bills are supported by the Burns administration.
E 1DXANA
Indiana ‘s env iroiun ental policy act (IC 13-1-10), enacted in 1972, applies
to state projects. Included in the law is a provision that it shall not be
construed “to require an enviro;rimental impact statement for the issuance
of a license or permit by any agency of the state.” Coordination and
review are the respo sibiity of the Governor’s Office and the Environ-
mental Management Beard. The law has not yet been implemented.
I ’KASSACHUSETTS
Massachusetts enacted an EIS requirement in 1972 (Acts, 1972, Chap. 781);
however it will not take effect until July 1, 1973. The law applies to “any
work, project, or activity” of “any agency, department, commission,
or authority of the commonwealth or any authority of any political subdivision
thereof...” The Secretary o Environmental Affairs is given responsibility
for review.
] XCHIGAN
Under Executive Directive 1971-10, and guidelines issued by the Advisory
Council for Environmental Quality pursuant to the directive, ElSe are
required for “any policy, administrative action, or coistruction project
proposed by” a state agency. “Administrative action” is defined to include
issuance of permits. Review is accomplished by the Inter-Departmental
Committee on Water and Related Land Resources. The Governor’s Office
is considering recommending legislation to give the EIS procedure a
statutory base.
-------
MONTANA
The I c.. zna Envfrc:rimental Policy Act (R. Cede Mont. Sec. 69-6501 et
seq .), enacted irk. 1971, requires that an E [ S be included in “every recom-
mendation or report on proposals for projects, programS, legislation and
other ajor actions f state government...” According to the Environ-
mel Qu flty Council, which is responsible for coordinating the program
and reviewing sta e ients, “private sector enterprises are affected in
cases where a proposed action requires a license, permit, lease, or other
ei e e t from the state. If the action is controversial or significandy
the human ei vironment, the involved agency must prepare an EIS.”
Gu deUnes have bee issued by the Council. During the first year of opera-
tion o the Montana aw (1971-72), six agencies filed 64 statements with the
Council and four agencies filed 52 “negative declarations” stating that the
einwfronmental effects of a proposed action were insignificant or nonexistent.
NEW ME [ CO
Ne r Mexico’s Environmental Quality Control Act (N. M. Stats. 12-20-1
et seq.) (NMEQCA), enacted In 1971, requires an EIS to be included in
“ very recommendation or report on proposals for legislation and other
state actions...” The act also created a Council on Environmental Quality,
1b t did not charge that body specifica iy with responsibility I or the EIS
p cgram . Accordi ig to the State Planning Office, the vagueness of the law
has created many problems of interpretation. A bill for an “Environmental
Policy Act” replacing the 1971 law is being prepared by the administration.
itt would require the Council to issue guidelines for “preparation, distril R1tiOn
and review” of impact statements. These guidelines would be directed to
“state agencies, boards and commissions, and shall insure that the state
agency decision making process include an appropriate and careful consider-
ation of the environmental aspects of proposed action.”
Severa’ recent court decisions have upheld the 1971 law. In City of Roswell
v. 0 M. Water_QuaIi Contro C rnmiss the New MexicöCOurt of
e .ls sa fThe acr ages environmental protection a part of the
mandate of every agenc 1 0: ep rtmer.t and makes every such agency
subject to its pro?isior S.” The court noted that the state law is closely
patterned after NEPA, “which has been characterized as the most important
legislative act of the decade and also as our ‘environmental constitution 0 ’
l it was surely nt€ncied that on the state level NMEQCA would fulfill as
iir porta t role arid have as profound an impact as the national act.”
-------
NORTH CAROLINA
The North Carolina Environmental Policy Act of 1971 (N. C. Gen. Stats.,
Sec. 113A et seq.) requires impact statements to be included in “every
recommendation or report on proposals for legislation and actions invol
ving expenditures of public monies for projects and programs significantly
affecting the quality of the environment...” In addition, local governments
are authorized (but not required) to “require any special purpose unit of
government and private developers of a major development project” to
submit an EIS. The term “major development project” includes but is not
limited to “shopping centers, subdivisions and other housing developments,
and industrial and commercial projects, but shall not include any projects
of less than two contiguous acres.” By mid-1972, only one local govern-
ment, the Town of Hold en Beach, had adopted such requirements. The
North Carolina Caunc.l on State Goals and Policy is charged with reviewing
impact statements. The Department of Administration has issued guidelines
for the program.
The act terminates on September 1, 1973, unless extended or made perma-
nent by the General Assembly. Governor Robert W. Scott believes the law
has “proved to be a valuable tool for ensuring that actions of state governc
ment reflect the aspirations of c ir people for an environment of high
quality, “ and he has recommended that it be made permanent, with certain
modifications. These include deleting a requirement hat an EIS be included
with agency proposals for legislation affecting the environment; requiring
an ETS to be submitted in the “early planning stages” of a project, rather
than after basic decisions have been made; and requiring environmental
impact analyses to be included in the annual work programs of state agencies.
PUERTO RICO
Puerto Rico’s Public Environmental Policy Act (Law No. 9, June 18, 1970;
12 Laws P. R. Ann. Sec. 1121 et seq.), enacted only six months after
NEPA, was the first state or territorial law to require environmental impact
statements. It is almost identical to NEPA. The law is administered by
the Environmental Quality Board in the Office of the Goverflor, which has
issued detailed guidelines for the program. Under those guidelines, impact
statements are required for legislation proposed or reported on by common-
wealth agencies and “projects and continuing activities directly undertaken
by commonwealth agencies; supported in whole or in part through common-
wealth contracts, grants, tax exemptions, subsidies, loans, or other forms of
financial assistance [ orjinvolving a commonwealth lease, permit, license,
certificate or other entitlement for use.” An EIS is also required for “the
adoption, amendment or repeal of plans, policies, regulations, guidelines,
norms, or procedures;” for decisions relating to mining concessions: and
for “any proposed action that is likely to be highly controversial on environ-
-------
unds.”
its 97 annual ro port, the Environmental Q iality Board notes that
© nce with the E] [ S requirement is still far from universal” and
that ° ome commorawtaalth agencies are participating in the process
i e fuY Iy than others. . .Citizen lawsuits seem likely to play a key role
in prcmoting lIer compliance with statutory E lS requirements.”
lk . g calendar year 197 Ti, 1 reports were processed by the Board
u r the Puerto 1 i o law, 3 und3r both the U. S. and commonwealth laws,
ain 8 under NEPA alone.
TEXAS
©ceth ires for preparation, processing and review of environmental impact
statements in Texas are set forth in a “Policy for the Environment” adopted
on January 1, 1973 by the )Interagency Council on Natural Resources and the
Environment, chaired by Governor Preston Smith. This policy “neither
r tfres nor mandates its member agencies, but rather suggests and
solicits the cooperation and coordination of its participants to appraise and
improve the envirozunental effects of their activities and to develop new
imt tives to abate environmental problems.” Impact statements are
sn ested for “pro ect proposals” of state agencies. The Division of
Planning Coordination in the Governor’s Office coordinates the program.
WASH GTON
Washington’s State Environmental Policy Act (Chapter 43. 21C, RCW), enacted
in T W71, is patterned closely after NEPA, Impact statements are required
on “proposals for egislation and other major actions... “and of “all branches
of government of this state, inchiding state agencies, municipal and public
corpor t;ions, and our ies.” The law appears to apply to private actions
fo Mc a go ernmen perm t s required, as well as public actions. The
prog ’a n in coardinate by the D artmeint off Ecology, which has issued
g iidelines, and the Ecological Commission. The Department reports that
implementatio’ ii of he requirement has been somewhat sporadic, due
mainly to a lack of strict regulatory dei nitio s and procedures for determi-
ning what constitutes a “major action, “when environmental effects are
“significant, “and when a proposed act cn should receive full study by the
1Depart ent.
fltSCONSTh
The Wisconsin Environmental Policy Act (Wise. Stat. Sec. 1. 11), enacted
in 1971, applies C o “agencies oil the state” and generally follows the wording
of Section 102 of NEPA. However, there are two important differences.
Each ElS must “contain details of the beneficial aspects of the proposed
project, both shor’ term and long term, and the economic advantages of the
-------
proposal.” Also, “Every proposal other than for legislation shall receive
a piblic hearing before a final decision is made.”
While the Environmental Policy Act does not appear to require an EIS for a
private activity, a companion law (Chapter 273, Laws of 1971; W isc. Stat.
Sec. 23. 11 (5) and various other sections) authorizes the Department of
Natural Resources to require an EIS from “an applicant for a permit or
statutory approval” which the Department is empowered to grant, provided
the area that would be affected exceeds 40 acres or the estimated cost of
the project exceeds $25, 000.
State agencies are required to consult with other appropriate agencies in
developing impact statements. Copies of final statements are provided to
the Governor and the Departhient of Natural Resources. Governor Patrick
J. Lucey recently created an interagency Environmental Impact Statement
Coordinating Committee to assist agencies in implementing and defining
the language of the Environmental Policy Act.
-9-
-------
M O C 4 SL J OJ TAL IDCT AT 1 \T ] TAT)
) X Re ufrements and/or ]Proposals Co n ct
A
C
No
1 th’ñir G. dsjpeth
Policy c lies Division
Alabama Development Office
State Office Building
Montgomery, AL 3 1O4
Alaska
None. wever, D ‘rtment of Environmental Conservatlc i
reviews pr cts 1 Ii have potential for environmental
impact’ 9 and submits c omments to appropriate agencies.
Jerry Reinwand
Special A sistant to Commissioner
Department of Environmental
Cons ervat ion
Pouch 0
Juneau, AK 99801
Arizona
No general requirement. Game and Fish Commission on
July 2, 1971 adopted a policy requiring Fish and Game
Department to prepare ElS on proposed water oriented
development projects. Conservationists are proposing a
state policy act siimi]ar to California ‘s
Robert D. Curtis, Chief
Wildlife Planning and Development
Division
Arizona Game and Fish Department
2222 W. Greenway Rd.
Phoenix,_AZ_85023
Arkansas
None -
T. B. York, Director
Arkansas Department of Planning
Game and Fish Building
Little Rock, AR 72201
California California Environmental Quality Act of 1970 (Public John S. Tooker, Director
Resources Code Sec. 21000 et seq.). See text. Office of Planning and Research
1400 Tenth St.
Sacramento, CA 95814
-------
James K. Lewis, Director of Staff
Committee on Environmental
Pollution Control
Florida House of Representatives
217 Holland Building
Tallahassee, FL 32304
State
EIS Requirements and/or Proposals
Contact
Colorado
No current requirement. Senate Bill 43 (1973), the proposed
“Colorado Environmental Policy Act, “would require EIS
for “ jor” public and private actions under the jurisdiction
of any unit of state or local government.
David F. Morrissey
Assistant Director
Colorado Legislative Council
46 State Capitol
Denver, CO 80203
Connecticut
Executive Order no. 16, October 4, 1972. See text.
George Russell, Dir ecto
Education Programs
Department of Environmental
Protection
State Office Building
Hartford, CT 06115
Delaware
District of
Columbia
No general requirement, and none proposed. Under the
Delaware Coastal Zone Act (7 Delaware Code, Sec. 7001
et seq.), applicants for coastal zone permits must submit
EIS for proposed manufacturing projects.
No current requirement. A proposal to require EIS for
“major construction projecta” is under consideration.
John Sherman, Chief
Coastal Zone Management
Delaware State Planning Office
530 S. duPont Highway
Dover, DE 19901
Malcolm C. Hope, Director
Office of Environmental Planning
Department of Environmental
Services
415 12th St., N.W.
Washington, DC 20004
Florida
No requirement. A bill similar to NEPA was introduced in
the 1972 session of the Legislature, but failed to pass.
-------
EL quli ernents anó/or P oposals
No general requireirnent. ElS are required for proj sets
proposed to be u d kci by the Georgia Toilways
Authority. The Office of Planning and Research of the
Depc rtment of Natural Sesources currently is investigating
the possibility of formulating legislation to require ElS for
certain state arid local actions .
Executive Oi r dated Au st 23, IC? 1. 53e text.
The Governor 1 s office is drafUng legislation to extend the
E lS requirement c certain local government actions.
Richard E. Marland
Interim Director
Office of Environmental Quality
Control
Office of the Governor
550 Halekauwila St., Room 301
Honolulu, HI 96813
Oral H. Hert, Acting Technical
Secretary
Environmental Management Board
1330 W. Michigan St.
Indianapolis, IN 46206
Georgia
Hawaii
James T, McIntyre, Jr., D ecto
Office of Pl .nning and Budç ’
270 Washington St., S. W.
Atlanta, GA 30334
NJ
Idaho
None
Glenn W. Nichols, Director
State Planning and Community
Affairs Agency
State House
Boise,_ _83707
illinois
No requirement. Governor Richard B. Ogilvie proposed
legislation similar to NEPA in 1972, but it failed to pass.
Michael Schneiderman, Director
Institute for Environmental Quality
309 W. Washington St.
Chicago, IL 60606
Indiana
Public Law 98, 1972 (Indiana Code 13.440), not yet
implemented. See t ct,
-------
State
EIS Requirements and/or Proposals
Contact
Iowa
No requirement. There is “considerable discussion”
among state officials on this subject and it appears possible
that a bill will be introduced in the 1973 session of the
Legislature. -
Peter R. Hamlin
Environmental Coordinator
Office for Planning and
Programming
523 E. 12th St.
Des Moines, IA 50319
Kansas
None
John P. Hauigan, Director
Planning Division
Department of Economic
Development
State Office Building
Topeka, KS 66612
Kentucky
None
Bernard T. Carter
Executive Assistant
Department of Natural Resources
Frankfort, KY 40601
Louisiana
No requirement. Legislation to establish a general EIS
requirement was introduced in the 1972 session of the
Legislature (House Bill 1150), but failed to pass.
Eddie L. Schwertz, Jr.
Assistant Director
Office of State Planning
P. 0. Box 44425
Baton Rouge, LA 70804
William R. Adams, Commissioner
Department of Environmental
Protection
Augusta, ME 04330
- Maine
No requirement. There is some interest among conserva
tion groups in introducing a bill in the 1973 session of the
Legislature.
Maryland No requirement. A bill was introduced in the last session Vladimir Wahbe
of the General Assembly, but failed to pass. Secretary of State Planning
301 W. Preston St.
Baltimore, MD 21201
-------
State Z Mnt /or Proposals
C on act
No requirement. Two bills similar to NEPA were intro-
duced in the 1972 session of the General Assembly; both
died in committee. The state administration has created
an Environmental Impact Statement Task Force to evaluate
other state policy acts and make recommendations.
Harley Laing, Legal Counsel
Executive Office of Ewfronmen l
Affairs
18 Tremont St.
Boston, MA 02408
R. Brlnkworth
Chief Planning Specialist
Comprehensive Health Planning
Department of Community Affairs
505 Missouri Blvd.
.Tefferson City, MO 65101
Massachu-
setts
Acts, 1972. - Chap. 1 (sec. 01 et seq., C pter 30 ©
the General Laws) L ee text.
Mark Mason, Executive Secretary
Advisory Council for Environmental
Quality
Office of the Governor
Lansing, MI 48913
Mich1 an
•
Executive Directive 1971-10. See text. The Governor’s
o?lce i co i !erln j recommending legislation to give
the curreiit IB procedure a statutory t se.
.
.
Minnesota
.
No requirement. oirernor Wendell R. Anderson has
proposed a bill for a e e environmental policy act that
would authorize a prc ooed Environmental Quality Council
to require EIS from a y s ±e agency c i ’ private developer
“on any project or program that Ic determined. . . to have
a elgnificant v1ro enta1 eff cL”
Joseph E. Sizer, Director
Environmental Planning
State P1a nlng Agency
802 Capitol Square Building
St. Paul, MN 55101
Mississippi
None. A proposal to create a coastal zone management
program, Including E lS requirements, died In the 1973
session of the Legislature.
.
.
Edward A. May, Jr ., Assistant to
the Coordinator
Federal-State Programs
Office of the Governor
510 Lamar Life Building
,Iackaon, MS 39201
Missouri
-------
Alfred T. Guido
Special Assistant to Commissioner
Department of Environmental
Protection
Trenton, NJ 08625
Slate
EIS Requirements and/or Proposals
Contact
Montana
Montana Environmental Policy Act, 1971 (R. Code Mont.
Sec. 69-6501 et seq.). See tat.
Fletcher E. Newby
Executive Director
Environmental Quality Council
Capitol Station
Helena,_MT_59601
Robert 1). Kuzelka
Comprehensive Planning
Coordinator
Office of Planning and
Programming
Box 94601, State Capitol
Lincoln,_NB_68509
Nebras
No general requirement, and none proposed. Department
of Roads prepares E]fS on slate inded highway projects.
Nevada
No general requirement. E]ES requirement for utility plant
siting was established by Chap. 311, Laws of 1WT1 (NRS
Chap. 704).
Dick Serdoz, Air Quality Officer
Commission of Environmental
Protection
131 Nye Building
Carson City, NV 89701
New Hamp-
shire
No requirement. Requiring EIS for major land develop
ments, “whether private or public, “is one of the priorities
of a legislative coalition formed by the state’s major
conservation organizations (for information on this proposal,
contact: Miriam Jackson, Counsel, SPACE, Box 757,
Concord,_NH_03301).
Raymond P. Gerbi, Jr.
Assistant to the Director of
Comprehensive Planning
Office of the Governor
Concord, NH 03301
New
Jersey
No general requirement. Legislation is being prepared in
both houses of the Legislature. A special EIS requirement
applies to a 35-mile extension of the New Jersey Turnpike.
The Department of Environmental Protection has prepared
“guidelines for an environmental assessment procedure”
and distributed copies to local agencies for their guidance.
-------
EL uirements a d/or Proposals
Contact
additicn, the Department is “suggesting” that such
assessments be prepared for major indus!rial construction
prior to issuance of necessary air or water pollution permits.
SeveraJi local jurisdictiens require E tS as part of the onlng
and subdivi lon process. _____________________________
New
Mexico
Environmental Quality Control Act, 1W71 (N. M, Stats.
12404 et seq.). See text. A revision, entitled “Environ
mental Policy Act,” is in draft.
David W. King
State Planning Officer
State Planning Office
Senta Fe, NM 87501
New York
No general requirement. An administrative regulation
(Rem 73, Budget ]R equest Manual) requires environmental
review and clearance for state funded capital construction
projects. A bill for a state environmental policy act, which
included an EIES requirement, passed both houses of the
Legislature in 1972 (Assembly Bill 9245. ..A), bat was vetoed
by Governor Rcckeffellc3r, who said that it would duplicate
existing requirements, confuse responsibility among state
agencies, and increase expenditures “at a time of protracted
fiscal_difficulty.”
Terence P. Curran
Director of Environmental Analysis
Department of Environmental
Conservation
Albany, NY 12201
Arthur W. Cooper, Assistant
Secretary for Res irce
Management
Department of Natural and
Economic Resc,.irces
P. 0. Box 27687
Raleigh, NC 27611
New
Jersey
(cc L)
See above
North
Carolina
North Carolina Environmental Policy Act, 1911 (N. C. Gen.
Stats., Sec. 113A et seq.). See text.
-------
State
EIS Requirements and/or Proposals
Contact
North
Dakota
No general requirement, and none pending. A special EIS
procedure applies to certain waste water treatment facilities.
Norman L. Peterson, Director
Division of Water Supply and
Pollution Control
Department of Health
State Capitol
Bismarck,_ND_58501
Ohio
No requirement at present. Governor John J. Gilligan has
requested his exe itive department to institute an EIS
program, am! the Ohio EPA is attempting to get a similar
program enacted into law.
Alan L. Farkas
Deputy Director for Policy
Development
Ohio Environmental Protection
Agency
450 E. Town St.
Columbus, OH 43216
Oklahoma
None
Don N. Strain, Director
State Grant-in. .Aid Clearinghouse
Office of Community Affairs
and Planning
4901 Lincoln Blvd.
Oklahoma City, OK 73105
Oregon
No requirement. Legislation supported by Governor Tom
McCall is being drafted for introduction in the 1973 session
of the Legislative Assembly. A similar proposal died in
the 1971 session.
Kessler R. Cannon, Assistant to
the Governor, Natural Resources
State Capitol
Salem, OR 97310
Pennsyl- None Thomas Dolan, Chairn n
vania Citizens’ Advisory Council
Department of Environmental
Resources, do EPIC
313 S. 16th St.
Philadelphia, PA 19102
-------
ar /© r c o 1ls
Contact
iii
I lco
Saritoc Rohena Beanca rt
Acting tlve Director
] nvfronmen Quality Bo
l55O iPcrice A 0 4 th
Santurce, PR 009 I0
Edward L. Thackston, Staff Assistant
for Environmental Affairs
Office of the Governor
Nashville, TN 37219
Texas
“Policy for the Environment” adopted by Interagency
Council on Natural Resoirces and Environment, March
Ed Grisham, Director
Division of Planning Coordination
Erivfro mantaR Policy Act (Law No. 9, Tune 18,
1 0; 12 P. IRL AIn 1L Jec . 1121 et ee j .). $ee text .
- a
ode
s l aric l
No requirement. A bill to establieh a general EltS requfre
merit was intrc tuce i in the 1972 e icm of the Rhode Island
Legislature (H 5179), but riot reported from committee.
.
Daniel W. Varin, Chief
Statewide Planning
Department of Admin at1cnt
265 Meirosé St.
Providence, RI 02907
Sc ith
Carolina
No requirement. A bill to require tS review for major
private and public projects has been ln cduced in the 1973
session of the islature.
Gene Boles, Principal Planner,
Environmental Policy
Office of Planning
Division of Administration
Columbia,_SC_29211
Sonth
Dakota
None
-
Donald G. Kurvink
Associate Director
Office of Comprehensive Health
Planning
Department of Health
Office Building No. 2
Piei’re, SD 57501 -
Tennessee
No requirement. Governor Winfield Dunn’s administration
is considering proposing an act similar to NEPA; no
decision has been taken.
-------
State
EIS Requirements and/or Proposals
Contact
Texas 1972. See text.
(cont.)
Utah No requirement. A bill to require EIS for state government
projects is pending in the Legislature.
i
—— L.____________
Box 12428, Capitol Station
Austin, TX 78711
Lee Kapaloski
Environmental Coordinator
Office of the State Planning
C oordinator
118 State Capitol
salt _City, UT 84114
Vermont No requir. nent similar to th%t dndc NF 1 PA, However, Sc ay er Jackson
und Act 250 197C (10 V. s. A. c:.apter 151), any project : Assistant Secretary
invo ’ing change in land use any significance u: dergoes Agency of E ivironmental
s r ’utth - as to environmsntal t pact. Ccnservatio
Mc ntpe1ier, iT 05602
—- .--- --- — -- - ---••—---r--—--- •••--—— V
Virginia No requirement. The 1973 session of the Ger 3ra Assembly Robert H. Kirby, Director
is considering a bill to require EIS for state and local 1Mvisio’ of State Planning and
projects. Community Affairs
1310 James Madison Building
—__________________________________________________ Richmond, VA 23219
Washing-
ton
EIS are required under the State Environmental Policy Act,
1971 (Chapter 43. 21C, RCW); and the Highway Construction
Environmental Review Law, 1971. While it does not require
EIS, the Shoreline Management Act of 1971 is administered
to “frequently require” impact statements to accompany the
review_of_shoreline_permits_sanctioned_by_local_officials.
Dennis L. Lundblad
Office of Planning and Program
Development
Department of Ecology
Olympia, WA 98504
West
Virginia
None
Ira S. Latimer, Director
Department of Natural Resources
Charleston, WV 25305
-------
Wisconsin
Wyoming
EliS frements and/oi Proposals
Wisconsin En ntal Policy Act, 197 (Wisc 0 Stat,
Sec. I. 11) Chapter 74, Laws of 19’fl; and aXso Chapter
73 of the Laws of which re’ates specifically to the
De rtmentofNatsrai Essaiirces e t t 0 -
None
Contact
L. P. Voigt, Secretary
Department of Natsral JR esr aces
Box 450
Madison, W I 53701
Vincent J. Horn, Jr.
Administrative Assistant to the
Governor
Capitol Building
Cheyenne, WY 82001 - - - _____
-------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
Forms and Publications Center
Route 8, Box 116, Hwy. 7O, West
Raleigh. North Carolina 27612
Official Business
POSTAOB AND PUS MID
ENVIRONMENTAL PHOTECTION AOBNCV
EPA-335
Special Fourth-Class Rate
Book
If your address is incorrect, please change on the above label;
tear off; and return to the abovr address.
If you do not desire to continue receiving this technical report
series, CHECK HERE Q ; tear off label, and return it to the
above address.
------- |