[From the U.S. Government Printing Office, www.gpo.gov]
55 United States General Accounting Office 15255 COASTAL ZONE INFORMATION CENTER REPORT TO THE CONGRESS BY THE COMPTROLLER GENERAL OF THE UNITED STATES Environmental Reviews Done By Communities:/Are They Needed? Are They Adequate? Department of Housing and Urban Development Communities receiving community develop ment block grants are doing environmental reviews for projects which affect the environ ment little, if at all. GAO questioned the need for these unnecessary environmental reviews and is making recommerdations aimed at eliminating them. This report also discusses problems commu nities have in effort,effectively carrying out the en vironmentai responsibilities delegated by the Department of Housing and Urban Develop ment. GAO is making rcommendations aimed at solving these: problems. HC 110 E5 U56 1977 CZIC COLLECTION CED 77 123 SEPTEMBER 1, 1977 COASTAL ZONE INFORMATION CENTER COMPTROLLER GENERAL OF THE UNITED STATES WASHINGTON D.C. 20840 To the President of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives This report discusses unnecessary environmental reviews being made by communities receiving community development block grants and the problems experienced by comminities in effectively carrying out their environmental responsibilities. We examined these environmental reviews to, provide the Congress with information as to whether the policies of the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321), were being effectively implemented and whether the public can be assured undiminished protection of the environment in connection with expenditures under this program. We made our review pursuant to the Budget and Accounting Act, 1921 (31 U.S.C. 53), the Accounting and Auditing Act of 1950 (31 U.S.C. 67), and the Legislative Reorganization Act of 1970 (31 U.S.C, 1152). We are sending copies of this report to the Director, Office of Management and Budget; the Chairman of the Council on Environmental Quality; the Administrator, Environmental Protection Agency; the Secretary of Housing and Urban Develop- ment; and the Secretary of Health, Education, and Welfare. Comptroller General of the United States COMPTROLLER GENERAL'S ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEWS DONE By REPORT -10 THE CONGRESS COMMUNITTES: ARE THEY NEEDED? ARE THEY ADEQUATE? Department of Housing and Urban Development D I G E S T Communities are doinq r-,nvironmental reviews for minor projects which have few, if any, effects on the environment. This is a waste of time and money. GAO examined 26 communities.which spent about $214,000 on 450 environmentai reviews. during the first year of the community development biock, program. (See p. 6.) Reviews of about 54 percent of the projects may have been an- necessary. With 3,044 communities receiving grants during the first progcam year, envi-., ronmental reviews nationwide could h--7e cost $14 million. (See p. 7.) Based on a community's certification of com- pliancewith Federal. environmental require- ments, the Department of Housing and Urban Development releases grant funds to the ap- plicant. To meet environmental requirements, an applicant must go through a prescribed review orocess to determine how each project will afiect the environment and must advise the public of its findings. (A limited number of activities, such as planning and admini- stration, are specifically exempt from envi-. ronn.ental reviews.) If a project will greatly affect the environ- ment, an Environmental Impact Statement must be prepared. Seventy-five Environmental Impact Statements were prepared by block grant recipients as of September 1976. (See p. 5.) Environmental reviews may not be needed for such community development activities as --social or service projects; --minor maintenance,greplacement, or repair projects which.do not alter existing uses; --beaLltification pro-'oets; and _J IUL.Sbw. Upon removal. the report Co":er date should be noted hereon. --rehabilitation or renovation of occupied structures and loans and grants to property owners for such work. (See p. 7.) Some communities are not effectively carrying out the environmental responsibilities dele- gated by the Department of Housing and Urban Development. Their environmental reviews do not --adequately describe the project, --define existing environmental conditions and current environmental trends, --identify and evaluate how proposed projects will affect the environment, --consider changes and/or alternatives for proposed projects, or --address required historic values. (See p. 12.) RECOMMENDATIONS To make the environmental review process easier and to make sure that communities carry out their responsibilities, the Secretary of Hous- ing and Urban Development should: --Work with the Council on Environmental Quality to identify, and exempt from review, those insignificant types of projects which do not need environmental reviews. --Clarify and expand the Department's envi- ronmental review procedures, particularly the scope of environmental reviews required by communities. --Establish a mandatory environmental review format for communities to use. -Emphasize training of community environmen- talists. --Revise the Department's monitoring proce- dures, so communities' environmental reviews are evaluated in depth. (See p. 22.) A.GENCY COMMENTS The Council on Environmental Quality; the Environmental Prctection Agency; and the De- partments of Health, Education, and Welfare and Housing and Urban Development generally agreed that certain types of projects should be exempt from environmental reviews. They -enerally agreed that the scope of required environmental reviews need to be defined, increased training is needed, and that a mandatorv environmental review format and in depth evaluations of communities' environmen- tal reviews during monitoring are nee6ed. T" ne Department of Housing and Urban Develop- ment is soliciting criticisms of the existing regulations and suggestions for improving them. .,t :)Ians a major revision of the environmental procedures in the fall of 1977. (See p. 22.) Tear Shegt C o n@t e n t s Page. DIGEST CHAPTER INTRODUCTION 1 Housing.and Community Development Act 1 HUD and community environmental responsibilities under NEPA 2 2 IMPROVEMENTS NEEDED IN THE ENVIRON- MENTAL REVIEW PROCESS 6 Environmental reviews for some types of projects not needed 7 Environmentai reviews are in- inadequate 12 Conclusions 21 Recommendations 22 Agency comments and our evaluation 22 3 SCOPE OF REVIEW 25 APPENDIX I HUDregional and area offices and community 'Locations visited during our review 26 II Letter dated June 30, 1977, from the Department of Housing and Urban De- velopment 27 III Letter dated June 10, 1977, from the Department of Health, Education, and welfare 30 IV Letter dated June 7, 1977, from the Executive Office of the President, Council on Environmental Quality 32 V Letter dated July 15, 1977, from the Environmental Protection Agency -@3 -VI Principal officials of the DeparLment of Housing and Urban Development responsible for activities discussed in this report 34 ABBREVIATIONS CEQ Ccuncil on Environmental Quality EPA Environmental Protection Agency ERR environmental review record GAO General Accounting Office HEW Department of Health, Education, and Welfare PUD Department Of HOUS-ing and Urban Development NEPA National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 CHAPTER I INTRODUCTIGO nTo 6eclare a national policy which will encourage productive and enjoyable harmony between man and his environment; to promote efforts which will prevent or eliminate damage to the environment and biosphere and stimulate the health and welfare of man; to enrich thc understanding of the ecological systems and natural. resources important to the Nation; and to establish.a Council on Environmental Quality." With these stated purposes, the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA) (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.) was en--, acted' on January 1, 1970. To achieve these ends, the act qenerally directs that all Federal agencies --utilize a systematic, interdisciplinary approach in making environmental decisions, 47 --develop procedures for assuring appropriate consider- ation of environmental amenities and values, and --prepare detailed statements disclosing the environ- mental impa-,@ts of major Federal actions significantly affecting the quality of ,he human environment, including alternatives to the proposed accions. The Council on Env@ronmental Quality (CEQ) (1) provides national policy and guidance on Federal activities affecting the environment , (2) assists in coordinati,g these activities, and (3) oversees Federal agencies$ impleme'ntati.on of NEPA.. HOUSING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT NCT .Title 7 of the Housing and Community Development Act of 1974 (42 U.S.C. 5301 (Supp. 5 1975)) consolidated seven ex- isting Department of Housing and Urban Development (HOD). ,categorical programs I/ into a new, single program of com-7 munity development block grants. l/Urban Renewal; Model Cities; W"Iter and Sewer Facilities; Open Space; Neighborhood Fac4lities; Rehabilitation Loans; and Puulic Facilities Loans. The primary objective of this program is to develop via ble ur6an communities by providirg decent.housing, a suit- able living environment, and expanded economic opportunities, principally for persons of low and moderate income.. This@ objec@ive is to be achieved through elimination of slums, blight, and detrimental living conditions, conservation and expansion of the Nation's housing stock, expansion and improve- me-- of community services, more rational utilization of -lano and other natural resources, reduction of the isolation of income groups within communities, and restoration and preservaticn of properties with special historic, arckitec- tural, or esthetic values. Unler title 1, HUD is authorized to make g,rants to States and units of general local government to help fin- ance eligible community development activities. Althou@h the act contempi-ites the community development block grant program extendirl cvcr at least a 6-year per-.od, theinitial $8.4 billion authorization covers only 3 years. For fiscal year 19'75--,tbe fIrst year of the program--3,044 communities received gra.tt-, totaling $2.54 biilion to help finance com- MUnity development programs. As of December 31, 1976, approved grants amounted to .54.8 billion,currulatively. Cities over 50,000 in population and urban counties over 200,000 in population are entitled to grants deter- mined by a formula based on population, extent of housing overcrowding, and extent of poverty. Discretionary grants -:.e also awarded to applicant.communities at the Secretary's discretion rather than on the basis of the legislative formula. HUD AND COMMUNITY ENVIRONMENTAL RESPONSIBILITIES UNDER NEPA In deferen'ce to NLPA, the Congress included, as part of the Pausing and Community Development Act of 1974, section 104(h)(1) which states in part that, In order to assure that the po:icies of the National Environmental Policy Act of,1969 are most affectAvely implemented in connection with the expenditure of funds under this title, and to assure to the public undiminished protection of the environ- ment, the Secretary, i,i lieu of the environmental protecFion procedures otherwise applicable, _!@@ under regulations provide for the release of funds for particular projects to appl-tcants who assume all of 2 W the responsibilities for environmental review decisionmaking, and action pursuant to such Act that would apply to the Secretary were he to under take such projects as Federal projects. (Underscoring supplied.) Section 104(h) of title I makes an unprecedented dele- gation of authority to the applicant for environmental im- pact assessments required under NEPA. This is the first time that the authority for insuring NEPA's implementation has been delegated below the Federal level. Concern over transferring this authority to State and local governments was expressed during the Senate debate of title I by the author of NEPA and the American Federation of Labor and Congress of Industrial Organizations. Some of the concerns raised were: Some municipal governments may not have the necessary capability to perform environmental assesments and draft adequate environmental impact statements. Permitting the delegation of the impact statement responsibility ignores the basic purpose of NEPA which was to hold the Federal Government respon- sible for maintaining the quality of our environment. --The provision might provide a precedent for future Federal programs. We examined environmental reviews, prepared by communi- ties receiving block grants, to provde the Congress with information as to whether the policies of NEPA were being effectively implemented and whether the public can be assured undiminished protection of the environment in connection with expenditures under this program. After consulting with CEQ, as required by section 104(h)(1), on January 7, 1975 (corrected and amended or July 16, 1975), HUD issued regulations governing environmental reviews. These regulations turn all NEPA responsibilities over to the block grant communities (unless a lack of legal capacity is deemed to exist) and provide for release of block grant funds based on community certification of com- pliance with HUD and NEPA requirements. To complly, a community must go through a prescribed review process to identify any environmental impacts (i.e., any alteration of existing environmental conditions or creation cf a new set of conditions) of proposed actions. 3 Except for certain exempt activities, such as planning, administrntive, and continuation projects, a community must determine for each project (1) existing environmental conditions, (2) adverse and beneficial impacts, (3) nature, maqhitude, and extent of any impacts, (4) modifications or alternatives which could eliminate or minimize adverse impacts or enharice environmental quality, and (5) whether @_he proposed project may significantly affect the quality of the human environment. Also, communities must review each project to determine whether any historic properties will be affected. As support for the performance of an environmenLal review, communities are required to maintain an environmental.review record which must include a project description; documentation show.-ng that each step in the review process hat been per- formed; evidence that the required historic preservation revic-@- analysis has been conducted; and any other information n-ecessary to support act ions taken HUD regulations state that environmental impect deter- minations are "* * * largely a matter of judgment on the part of the applicant * * Accordingly, applicants generally have the sole responsibility for determining whether planned actions will have a significant impact on the environment. HUD reouires a mandatory finding of significance for only two types of projects--housing programs which would remove, derrio- lish, convert, or construct a total of 500 or more dwelling units and water and sewer facilities programs which will serve undeveloped areas of lOu acres or more. When a community makes a decision as to the significance of a project's impact on the environment, notice of such decisions inust be published in a local iewspaper and copies must be sent to local groups known to be interested in the applicant's activities, local, State, and Federal agencies; and auth3rized State and areawide planning and development clearinghouses for comment. For findings of no significant effect, a community must allow 15 days for public comment before publishing a news- paper notice to advise the public of its intent to request release of funds. After a wait of 5 additional days, the community is free to request the release.of project funds from BUD upon certification that its environmental respon- sibilities have been carried out. HUD can release funds 15 days after receiving the communlity's request or a minimum elapsed time of 35 days. For projects in which a finding of significant effect is iade, however, an Environmental Impact Statement must be pre- p.ared and the earliest that funds can be released is 110 days. This has nct proven to be a major handicap because only 75 Environmental Impact Statements have been prepared by block grant recipients as of September 1976. HUD's aoroval of a community's certification is deemed "n satisfy HUD'-; NEPA resoonsibilities. 5 Chapter 2 IMPROVEMENTS NEEDED IN THE ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW PROCESS Becauce of the provisions of the HUD regulations, communities are making environmental reviews for projects having little or no impact on the environment.Specificall, our review of 195 environment review records(ERRs) in 26 communities showed that 106 EERs appeared to be unnecissary because of their environmental insignificance. These 26 communities had spent about$214,000 during the first year to perform 450 environmental reviews.Considering that 3,044 communities received grants in fiscal year 1975 the cost of performing environmental reviews on a nationwide basis could have approximated $14 million.We also evaluated the adequacy of 47 ERRs that wee prepared by 9 of the 26 communities. While these 47 ERRs, in our opinion, were necessary, we found that 34 of them were incomplete because they did not --totally describe the work done or define the environmental conditions existing in project areas, --identify and evaluate all environmental impacts of proposed projects, --consider modification to or alternatives for proposed projects,or --make the required historic analysis of properties in project areas. We believe that the elimination of environmental reviews for certain environmentally insignificant types of projects would streamline the review process and allow communities to (1) have more immediate use of grant funds, (2) have more grant funds available for projects,and (3) perform more effective reviews for significant projects.We also believe that HUD needs to assume a more dominant role in the environmetal review process by (1) providing better guidance to communities, (2) putting increased emphasis on training community environmentalists, and (3) in proving its monitring programs. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEWS FOR SOME TYPES OF PROJECTS NOT NEEDED To obtain qrant funds, communities must qo through a pre- scribed environ-mental review process for each activitv not considered exempt by HUD reculations. Activities which dc not ..have to be environmentallly assessed ircl;,Ie (1) environmental studies, (2) program planning and admini:;-rative expenditures, (3) continuation projects which were the subject of previous environmental reviews and for which no significant changes in technology or available data have occurred, and (4) first- year actions to continue previously approved urban renewal or model cities projects. All other activities must be assessed. However, our evaluation of ERPs showed that comnunities are expending grant funds to perform environmental reviews for many proj- ects which ar-- so minor in nature that few, if any, discer- wed 195 of nible impacts can be expected to occur. We revie 450 ERRs prepared by 26 communities and, based upon the type of projects being planned, about 54 percent appeared to be unnecessary tecause they wera m-@nor in nature and had little potential impact on the environment. Tne 26 communities we visited spent about $214,000 to prepare 450 ERRs for the first proqram year--an average of about $475 for each ERR. of these, 22 we.re entitlement com- munities, each of which spent an average of $9,568 to prepare its ERRs. The remaining four were discretionary communities, each of which spent an average of $836.50 to prepare its ERRs. During the first program year HUD approved 1,321 entitlement grants, which were allocated on the basis of the legislative formula, and 1,913 discretionary grants, which were awarded ,at the Secretary's discretion. If each community spent the average amount spent by the 26 communities, we estimate that the nationwide cost of performing environmental reviews. was about $14 million. .To classify community projects which we believed to be environmentally insignificant, we developed our own criteria, as follows: Type of Projects for Which an Environmental Review Aouears Unnecess,;ry Social or service projects wnere aid is given to the recipient (e.g., medical care, ccunse.ling, security patrols, recreation, education, and social programs, child care, tLaining, and transportation). 7 maintenance projects that maintain the status quo or make minor improvements (e.g., community cleanup, tree trimming, maintaining vacant lots and vacant structures, and street lighting). Beautification projects (e.g., landscaping; street furniture; fixing or eq,lipping already establibhed parks, playgrounds, tot lots, and passive recreation areas). Rehabi,itation or renovation of occupied structures and rehabilitation or other types of loans and grants to owners for work that does not ma,-erially alter the environment. Repair or replacement projects that do not change the use of the item repaired (e.g., water and sewer system, curbs and sidewalks, modification to buildirgs for the elderly and handicapped, repaving streets, and code enfor.cement to bring properties into compliance with health or zoning codes).. Comprehensive E-rograms that include combinations of the above categories but do not materially alter the environment. These crit--ria were developed after evaluating a number of ERRs and ascertaining typical categories or projects in which (1) few environmental impacts were identified and (2) identify impacts were expected to be minor. We also considered a community development consultant's study which ciassified such community actions as rehabilitatiDn, street improvements, curb and sidewalk improvements, code enforcement, and renova- lions as not essentially -iltering the environment. we recognize, h@-owever, that for some pr*ojects a determination.of their effect on historic properties may be necessary. The following chart shows the results of our review. 8 Number Percent.. ERRS reviewed a/195 Communities visited 26 ERRS which appeared to be unnecessary: Social or sevvice projects, 37 Maintenance projects 8 Beautification projects 13 Rehabilitation activities 16 Repair activities 24 Comprehensive activities 8 106 ERRS reviewed which appeared to be unnecessary 54.5 a/At each community if more than.10 ERRS were prepared during the first year, 10 were randomly selected for review. If 10.or less ERRS were prepared, all were. selected. Examples of each type of project for which an ERR appeared unnecessary follo Social or sewrv'ice projects Kansas City, Kansas, prepared a 9-page ERR to assess a $54,000 project which will fund the salaries of iuven1le officers for a police special juvenile unit. The primary project activity will be to apprehen.d truant school children. and attempt to remedy their problems before they co,,imit more serious legal transgressions. Various beneficial im- pacts of the project were discussed in the ERR as were some adverse impacts, Such as (1) temporary ineffectiveness of initial program efforts and (2) insufficient funding. The project was judged to have no significant impact on the envircn- ment. Maintenance projects Baltimore, Maryland, assessed a $100,000 supplemental city services program providing (1) rat eradication services, (2) trash pickup, and (3) cleanup of alleys, vacant 1-ots,-and other trouble spots. No negative impacts were.cited and a finding of no significant im@act was made&. 9 Beautification projects Harrisburg, Pennsylvania, prepared a lengthy assessment for a $15,000 project to provide street furniture, such as kiosks, benches, trash receptacles, and new street name signs in residential areas. No negative impacts were cited. Rehabilitation activities Lincoln,,Nebraska, assessed a $97,000 project to provide grants to@homeowne Irs to make needed repairs. Lincoln concluded that t'he project would not be large enough to permit extensive 3dditions and the only negative impacts would be minor. Repair activities A $100,000 Vineland, New Jersey, project to provide pavement and curb improvements to existing paving was assessed by a consultant. It was concluded that the project would have no appreciable effect on the environment. Comorehensive activit'ies A Lo7 Angeles County ERR assessed a $150,000 project to provide ( @ low ifterest loans for home rehabilitation and (2) handy@an and general fix-up services to elderly and handicapped persons for property maintenance. No adverse impacts on the environment were identified. Comments on need for ERRS Of the 26 communities we visited, 24 believed that HUD's current environmental- review requirements could be reduced or eliminated for some types of projects. The following table shows the types of projects which communi- ties believe may not need to be environmentally assessed. Types of projects for which Number of communities commentinq ERRS may not be necessary that ERRS may be unnecessary So cial or service 17 maintenance or replacement 8 that maintains the status quo or makes minor improvements Beautification 12 10 Types of projects for which Number of commanities.commenting ERRs may not be necessary that FRRs mav be unnecessarv Rehabilitation or renovation 15 of occupied structures and loans and grants for similar work Repairs or replacements that 16 do not change use of item ,repaired Some communities believed that the preparation of un- necessary ERRs delayed their projo-ts. Others believed un- necessarv work was created and the reduction or elimination of ERR requirements for some types of activities would save money. HUD representauives were generally in agreement that ERR iequirements may not be necessary for all classes of. `@`e Social service activities activ.L I S. , maintenance or re- placement activities, and beauti,ication projects were the. type of activities prominently mentioned bY HUD representa- tives in regional and area offices as not needing the type of environmental assessment required by current regulations, A HL)D Inspector General audiz (see p. 16.) also con- cluded th7t communities are performing environmental studies for certain categories of projects which have little or no impact on the quality of the human environmt-r-t. The December 1976 audit report stated thau about 15 percent of the projects examined by the HUD auditors were social or "software" projects which,_ when assessed, were regarded as little more than a "paper pushing" exercise by grantees. The HJD report suggested t,hat an extensive study of the type and nature of the various projects undertaken by grantees may reveal the naed to revise the environmental regulations to provide additional exemptions. As of March 1977, no action had been taken on the HUD reiDort. (See p. 16.) A report, prepared in February 1977 by the staff of the Subcommittee on Housing and Communitv Development,.House committee on Banking,. Finance, ana Urban.Affairs, stated that local officials have universally complained about the minor nature of many activi t4 ies which requife a formal environmental assessment. The staff report went on to state that local officials have strongly urged,that valuable staff resources not be wasted on assessments of elatively insignificant activities and that. HUD establish some sort of 'common sensel threshold as to when a particular activity becomes significant enough to require a formal environmental assessment." A CEQ representative advised us that CEQ would favor7 ably consider HUD proposals to expand the list of exempt activities. He st@ted that such proposals would have to* be initiated andrecommended by HUD. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEWS ARE INADEQUATE Although HUD regulations state that "The manner in which the applicant carries out the environmental review pro- cess is largely within the discreticn. of the applicant," certain mandatory review steps must be accomplished.(see p. 3). These steps are necessary for proper environmental assessments to insure the adequate protection of our environment.. however, the communities, in many cases, have not satisfactorily done this. We reviewed 47 ERRS preparedfor first-year projects by 9 communities in HUD's Philadelphia region. These 9 communities received community development grants totaling. $125.2 million during the first program year. Of the 47 ERRS reviewed, 14 had one or mor e of the problems discussed be low. Defickencies found Number Description otl types in ERRS reviewad of ERRS of deficiencies. Project descriptions 13 The ERR must contain a pro- incomplete ject description. Five communities had not thor- oughly described the details, of planned projects--a necessary start for an adequate analysis. Existing conditions 12 Existing environmental con- not totally defined ditions and current.enviion- mental trends must,be identified in order to pro- vide a data base for assessing a Ipro]ect. Five communities had not done this. 12 Deficiencies found Number D?@;cript4on of types .,in ERRs reviewed of ERRs of deficiencies 'Environmental impacts 30 All environmental impacts of not identified or a project must be identified completely discussed in terms of their nature, magnitude, and extent. Seven communities had not done this for key areas of the environment. Project alternatives 20 An environmental review must and./or modifications determine whether changes hot discussed could be made or alterna- tives adopted to eliminate or minimize adverse impacts. Four communities failed to consider alternatives and/or modifications. Historic preservation 17 Each project must be ex- analysis incomplete amined to identify any prop- erties included en o,7 eligible for the National Register of Historic Places and to determine whether the prop- erty will be-affected. Four communities had not done this. The following examples illustrate some of the deficien- cies noted above. A Wilmington, Delaware, pro4ect for the development of parks, waterways, and community facilities does not describe exactly what will be done for each planned activity, making an analysis of environ- mental impacts difficult. The ERR also did not address all potential environ- mental impacts including water quality standar3s and wildlife and vegetation or discuss possible project modifications. --A Scranton, Pennsylvania, z)roject to acquire an unused warehouse for an in- door skatinq rink described the existing condition of the structure but not the existing environmental conditions in the project area. Additionally, the ERR did not (1) adequately describe the planned project, (2) identify and discuss all 13 environmental impacts, (3) discuss alternatives or modifications, or (4) show evidence that a historic analysis was performed. --A Philadel phia pro4ect for construction or a compost recyciing center in a major parkarea did not discuss the nature, magnitude, and extent of a number of potential impacts. Among these potential impacts were the effects of (1) air pollution by increased truck traffic, (2) increased noise levels on area residents, (3) the project on wildlife and vegetation in tI.s area, (4) the project.on the esthetic environment in the park, and (5) a holding pond to be constructed as a breeding area.for insects or as a sour,7e of odors from bacteria growth. FPA and HEW analysis of ERRs To supplement our analysis of community environmental reviews, we referred 19 ERRs prepared by 7 communities to the Ervironmental Protection Agency (EPA) and 14 ERRs pre- pared by 3 communities to the Department of Health, Education, and Welfare (HEW) to obtain their comments regarding the adequacy of community environmental reviews. These agencies were selected by us for referral because of their jurisdiction by law or special;expertise for key aspects of the physical and/or social environment. The ERRs we referred were selected because they werLe typical examples of community ERRs and they appeared to have problems with documentation and analysis. The results of EPA's analysis of the 19 ERRs for.the 7 communit.-'-s are shown below. Project description incomplete Existing conditions not totally discussed 7 All envir onmental impacts not discussed 19 Alternatives and/or modifications not discussed 14 Of the 19 ERRq reviewed, EPA classitied 11 as being Incomplete or inadequate. In general, ERRs were considered.., incomplete or inadequate if the community failed to address many expected impacts and did not discuss other detail S" such as existing environmental conditions, modificationso and alternatives. Thefollowing two examples provide an.. indication of how EPA made its classifications. --EPA found a Scuanton ERR for' a bridge replacement and repair project to be incomplete because it had::.' not (1) totally addressed at least 13 potential.,...,. impacts, including the project's effects on air, water, wildlife, and.vegetation., and transportation and traffic, (2) discussee. modifications or alternatives, or (3) described the existing environmental conditions in the project area. EPA commented that-the ERR was not sufficiently detailed to determine whether an Environmental Impact Statement should be prepared. --An Allegheny County assessment for an i,-idustrial park access road was considered by EPA to be in-. complete because it had not (1) addressed at least 12 potential impacts, including air quality and water quality standards and effects of increased traffic flow, (2) completely discussed modifications to the project, or (3) described all existing-con-. ditions. EPA statedthat they have seen smaller projects requiring an Environmental Impact Statement. HEW chose to provide general observations on its review of ERRs rather than commenting on a case-by-case basis. In citing the HUD environmental regulations as being "much too generic".and providing little or no guidance on questions to be addressed and methods of obtaining necessary informa- tion, HEW stated that the quality cf the environmental assessments was directly proportionate.to the quality of. HUD's guidance. For example, in a Philadelphia ERR for a neighborhood conservation program, HEW cited weaknesses in the project description and in the ERR's failure to address at least 12 potential impacts of the project on the.environ- ment, such as traffic, schools, and health service delivery-- stating that "Th- ERR gives little evidence of an appreci- ation of environmental impacts beyond gross physical alterations." HEW belizved the community was not at f a.ult for this situation and concluded that 15 "The HUD orocedures which shift responsibility for determining (NEPA) compliance to the applicant are neither adequate nor effective." Internal audit and HUD monitoring visits An audit report issued by HUD's Office of Inspector General on December 29, 1976, l/ to the Acting Assistant Secretary for Community Planning arju Development discussed the inadequacy of commu'nity environmental reviews. The Inspector General audit was performedduring the peziod June 1975 to February 1976 and included visits to 49 communities in 24 States and the review of ERRs prepared for 259 first-year projects. The audito--s found that --projects were not fully described in a number of instances; communities prepared assessments which were generaily inadequate because thev did not adequately perform all of the review steris prescribed by HUD,. including the (1) description of existing physical and social environmental conditions; (2) identifi- cation of environmental impacts in ternis of their nature, magnitude, and extent; and (3) considera- tion of modifications and alternatives; and --some communities had not prepared Environmental Impact Statements,althovg@ p-ojects exceeded thresholds el:;tablished by HUD for determining significance, or had such significant environ- mental impacts as to warrant the preparation of an Environmenti.1 Impact Statement. The report made several recommendations for improving the environmental review process. HUD's response on March 8, 1977, stated that resolution of the matters discussed in the report would be delayed pending confirmation of a new Assistant Secretary. In addition to the HUD audit, monitoring visits made. by,HUD field offices during January 1, 1976, to September 30, 1976, r@,)ted envoronmental review deficiencies at the 1/"Environmental Review Activities of Grantees Participating in the Community Development Block Grant Program." 16