3) EIS's are being required for actions with ridiculously insignifi- 

 cant impact on the environment; 



4) The EIS process is being avoided because agencies are determining 

 that almost no actions meet the "significant impact" requirement; 



5) EIS's ignore the obvious economic benefits of many projects; 



6) Nothing results from EIS except paperwork, lawsuits, and delay. 



Some of these criticisms are being at least partially answered as agen- 

 cies, the courts, and the public become more familiar with what is required 

 by each under a totally new process for which there is almost no experience, 

 precedent or administrative history. The courts are defining what is sign- 

 ificant and providing guidance as to when an EIS is required; state agencies 

 are adopting rules which do the same thing, and we are finding out that much 

 of the paperwork on routing decisions can be eliminated. Second, the courts 

 are mandating that EIS's be used in the decision-making process before a de- 

 cision is made. Agencies are now beginning to do that, and we should see a 

 reduction in successful lawsuits brought on that basis. Economic analyses 

 are being emphasized by both the legislators and the courts, and agencies 

 are now staffing up so that economic benefits and costs will get the consid- 

 eration deserved. 



But is the EIS process worth all this? The answer is not an unqualified 

 "Yes," because some of the criticisms I've listed are valid and will remain. 

 However, recognizing that a retuim to unquestioned decision-making by major 

 resource users is very \anlikely, and if the process is applied reasonably 

 rather than being carried to absurdities, if staffing is adequate, if pro- 

 fessionals are used, and if the EIS is actually used to make decisions, then 

 the answer can be "Yes." 



Some of the more important benefits are: 



1) Resource management is improved. For instance, having a soils scien- 

 tist, a hydrologist, and a forester analyze a proposed timber sale is re- 

 sulting in increased growth of timber stands and protection of the soils, 

 other vegetation, and watersheds critical for long-term timber production. 

 Having a fisheries biologist, an economist, a soils scientist, and an en- 

 gineer evaluate a proposed dam is resulting in water projects which are more 

 easily justified on the basis of multiple use. 



40 



