.“ . - '0‘”, . ‘fiw A ' V {‘94. . . ' 1" l‘b‘wi- .b. -\'~--.~..- Q-I..¢..-.Q... .. . In;'.“" r -' c o a u” v-I':1-':on.u5vll ~I-l-. O'~‘$‘-’b' -. n 9.3-.fiV‘m-n‘g ~Q I... v--.A_'l . V . V. . , O n . ‘ . . Q ' V . . . » . . . . . . - . . . . . . V . ’ ' o o . o , . . V o . u . . v a V .' . . . I u ‘ A -. . V . ' - I . ' ‘ " _ ' _ . “'1 . . . _. ‘ . _ . . . . . . ‘ . - ' . V . . . . . . . - ~ - ‘ - _ . . . V . V . . . - . o _ t . . ' O. - I . V 1 I . I l . I . - . , ‘ .. . '. L ' . , .. . , . . . .- . - ' V - . . ‘ . ~ 0 . . ' ' ' 4 ' .' i - V ~ I n ' . I ' . t b . , . .‘ _ - ~ . . V . . .. . . . . . . . _ . . _ . . .. . ... .._ A - . q . . . . .. , V ' . . . . ‘t‘ . . ‘V . , " . o . . - . A . - . Q 7 I ’ ‘ -.' . ‘ ‘ . . . i‘ . . ' . . , V V . ‘.I . . ‘ V . > . - . . , -. ' ‘.' i . ' _ , . . . . _. , » a V - » . . . . . - - -- .-. . . , - h . . _ _ __ I- - . . _ . . ' ‘ '¢ " - - u l D . . . . . . . . . . . - a . V - . _ . . . . . . . . ' - . ‘ b. > u.. - - ' O O . O V . . . . _ V . u . . . . . V . . . . . . . . . . . . V. V. . a . . -. . . .. _ . . .. . . . - .. u . u - ‘ l . . . . . . _ . . A O . u “.' . . . V v I . n . ' ‘ ' ‘ ‘ . .I- . . . . . ‘ . V . ~ ' . . . ‘ - . .. ' . . , . ' . . . . . .. - . . . . . VV .- .. l . . . . -‘ . _ . 'a . . . . .. . . . . .. . . . . . . ~ . , ‘ . . . ' ~‘ ._ V - . . . 2 . . _ . . . V . A. . . V _ . . . . . . ~ . _ . _ . . . . . _ . . . . . V .. ... . . V . . . ., ~ - - . . .. . . V V- s - v . . . . _ .r . . . - . . . , .. V . - - . . . . . .- . . . . . . V. .. ’ . . - ' { - ‘ . ‘ - _ o. . to~~ - . ‘ ~ ' ‘ ~ ~ . V V '. A . - .s« V . . . . . . . V V V. . - - . . . V ‘ - - . . - . . .. . _ - .. . ' . V . .. . A. . . . . V ' . . V . . . V V . .. . . . . . . . ' - - n y . I . ' . ‘ . u . - . . . V V . . n n - CV ¢ - I w _ . ._. . . , , n . . - . . ' ~ . . V o . ' ‘ ‘ . .V . - : '- ‘..o . . - . . .. . . . . o t O I O ‘ . - I ’ v O V . . V . . ‘ - > . .- . . 0 ' . .. .. . . -..' _ . . . V - - V , . .._ . - . . . V ... . . . V “ . ' ‘ u g n , I > a Q I ~ ' I O ‘ v v n .' . g . . a v- .. . .. . O . - t u ‘ ~ . ~ . . v . . D I. - — . . . . '. . . , .v ‘. . . ' . . . - - . ° . v _ ‘ . - -4 -. ' V . - . ‘ , a . _ ‘_ ~' I x ‘ . . . . . V . . . V . V . . . . . . . .. .. . .- . o - . . . . . . V . - .V . . . . i . . . - i . . . . .'. ' . '- . . V‘ .- .. . . r , . . -. . . . . ‘ . . o . ' . .. I . , , . . v- - - ‘ ‘ . - '... -" ‘ - ' . . ,1 . ' " ¢ ' ' . . . _ g ‘ . V . . . . .‘ . . . . . ‘ .- . ’ C . - . .. .- V -‘, . . .- . . . . . . _ . V . , . ‘. . . . ' ' ‘- - . . - .v . ' . ' c . o o n .V I ; ' UV . . ‘ ‘ - ’ " . . . ' . .- n . - . ' . -. ~ . . ~ - ’ O u . I n ' - - . O t . I a n V v ". . '. V . ‘ J . . . . . ., . o - .. . ‘ . . . o . . V . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . - ‘ ‘ . . . . _ c -_ ' . ' . - .. ‘ , . . . . . . . . V ' " . . ’ ' V ' ' - . . . ’. ‘ . . .. . . . - p -o . ,s ' , . . . . . _ I . . . . . . - . . .u . . .' .. . . ' - 4 - . - . . . .. . V. .V . . .- . V . . ‘ . . . ., . , .V . - o . . . ,. V . .. - . . ~ . - . - . .. - - . . . . . . ‘ ' . ‘ 4 . - n -‘> .. -. . .. . . . - . . . . . . . .. . . . o . . ' ‘ ‘ ' ' - . . . - Iv. . . . - . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . .. . - . . . V . . a . . . . . , . . . - ._V. . . . ' . . . . . . . ... . . . . . . . . . . , , _ . - . . . . - - _ . . . .. - . .. . . V. . . - , V V . o . . . . . ‘ ' ‘ I. . . v . a . V . _ . . . " ‘ . ' . . I ' . . o - . . - . . . . - V V . . . . . . . . . -, l . . . o. n . n a .- < V n < ' ~ v C u , ' ' . " . .. . . ~ .- - . . . . . . . . - . o . . . . . . .. . . .. ' .V ' . - . .9 - .- o . . . . - . . . . .. . - . . . . - a . ~- ‘ V ' - . . . I a . . . .n- . - V... ' , . . . . .. . ‘ . V . . . . . ‘ . . . _. - - ~ ' . ‘ . . . . - . - o -. . . V . .. . . . . . o . . . .. . . ~ ' - '. v . . - - . ' - A G ' O - ~ g . ' . - . . . V . . n . . .. _' - n . I . . . . . h - . n O . u I ' . ’ . . ‘. . . . . . . . . . ~ . l ,.. . I n ‘ O ' - . .. . . . _ . . . . . . . . . . V ~ ‘ . ‘ ‘ . ‘ . . . V n . . 4 . ' I" ' '. . . - . V . . . - . . V V . . . . . . . .. . . _ ~ . O O . . . . . . . a . . . . . . . - . V . . - _ ~ . . ' | . . . V. .. . - . ' .I . . ‘ ' ‘ ', . .' '. ‘ o - 0 -v- ' - . I u - - ~ 5 c I . ‘ ' . . . - . ~ * _ . . . V . . _ ‘ ' ' . - ‘ . . . . . . . _ V . .. . . . . . . . ' ~ . w ‘ . . . . _ . V . V . - . . . o - . I . V y - o u I u ' I n o o - V _ . V. .. . V 7 n . V - a - . . . ’ ' V . ' _ a r 0 ‘ I - .- ‘ t - - .‘ ~ . ‘ . . . . o . _ . ‘ _ - _ x , : . '. . I . I n . o ' .' ‘ . o . Q . - . . , V » . . . - . l I a ' ‘ ' ' ~' ‘. . . ‘ - - n . ~ ‘. ' . . - . I ' . l > - .- - 1 OD. . v . - - ‘ _ _ " . V o ' ' ‘. . ' ~ - ‘ ' . ' c . . ~ . . ~ ' . . s O h - . . - . . .. . . , . - . . . c . . . . . . . . . . . V , . V . . . . . . V . . V . ' . . . . . . . . .- . . . I 0 ~ a O - . . ‘. ‘ ~ ~ . ' . . . - V _ - , A . . . . - V . . . . V . . ' C - u g n V . . . . . . - - ~ ' : . ‘ , ' ' . . . . ' - . b ' I - I - . . .. . . . . .o . . . . . . . . . . . n ' 7 ~ . ‘ n ’ ~ I . ' . V . _ o ‘ ., . . . . . . V . . - . .. . . ‘ . - ‘ ' u -. 0- O I . o v - c o - " > I ‘ . a ‘ ’ . _ ' V n . ~ . . . . . . I I .I u - ‘ . v 0 . . . V . . . . . . . . . .. . u o .n l ‘ v - I . . _ . , . 0 V . . ' ‘ ~ . .. ' - . - . . . . . > ‘ . _ . . _ | - . . . , . . . . . , . I . ' . . . ' V ' ,. - . ' _ . , ‘ ' . . V v n n . ' ' V. ' . . .' ‘ - ' ‘ . l . . ' - V ‘ ‘ . . . .- ‘ . - ' '. . c 0 v ' . . . . ‘ . o . a V ' . . . .- . V . . . . . . . . . . ’ o~ . ' . ' . - . I _ 5 _ V ‘ . . < — . . . , _ u . v ' . - . ' 2‘. V - . ’ ' I - . I ' t V O u - u . u Q .- . . a v u n n ’ , . . V v - - . ' - , _ . . . . . . . . v . ' - < ’ o O . - ' .. - u . ~ ' n ‘ ' . ' . . A - I V . . . . . . . D . “ u . _ . . - . n n . . V . ' . . , V I I - ‘I ' p ' v t ‘ . - . _ , . . . . V ~ . ~ - ._ _ . . - . r . - . . . O I - . p v V. , . . - .h - * v . ’ A ‘ o - . ‘ . . § - ‘ . v . ‘ u . I u ' »' . . . - . . . ‘- . ‘ _ . . . . . . . V _ . : . - ~ . . . ' ' V V . . ’. . . ' V . . . . . . . . . a . . ,, . , . . . .. - . r l-‘v I 5'“ . .‘-.' - r.’ *- '. - I. . '4'. 'Q a . 5" ‘ 3 '-"¢. __‘;.'. THE EFFECTIVENESS OF THE LOCAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT PROCESS: A CASE STUDY OF THE HANNAH TECHNOLOGY AND RESEARCH CENTER by ROBERT GOLLIN A PLAN B PAPER Submitted to Michigan State University in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of MASTER OF URBAN PLANNING School of Urban Planning and Landscape Architecture 1984 TABLE OF CONTENTS I. INTRODUCTION . . . . . . . . . . II. NATIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY ACT OF 1 9 6 9 I O O O O O O O 0 When is an EIS Required? . . . . The Effectiveness of Local Environmental Assessment . . III 0 CASE STUDY 0 O I O O O O O O O 0 Case Study Methodology . . . . . Hannah Technology and Research center I O O O O O O I O O O The EIS Process and Requirements Chronological Scenario . . . . . Analysis of the HTRC EIS Process Findings of the Case Study . . . IV. CONCLUSION . . . . . . . . . . FOOTNOTES 0 O O O O O O O O O O O O O . FIGURES FIGURE 1. Location of Hannah Property FIGURE 2. Project Development . . . . FIGURE 3. Environmental Review Process 10 15 19 22 25 26 29 11 12 17 ' "F. I. INTRODUCTION The national Environmental Policy Act of 1969 ushered in a new era of governmental decision-making. The expenditure of federal funds is now tied to an envi- ronmental impact assessment of the activities for which those funds will be spent. The Urban Development Action Grant (UDAG) program is a federally funded grant program, administered by the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), available to assist distressed cities, revitalize their economic bases, create employment, and strengthen their tax bases. HUD has fulfilled its NEPA mandated environmental review requirement by turning over assessment responsibilities to UDAG recipient communities. This report explores local government's prepara- tion of environmental impact assessments of UDAG projects. A case study of the Hannah Technology and Research Center, located in Meridian Township, Ingham County, Michigan, will be used to illuminate the environmental issues that were assessed and the process of that assessment. The most important conclusion drawn from the case study is that the NEPA required impact assessment process is not doing an adequate job of encouraging environmental improvements. Critics regard the present HUD environmental assessment process as merely a form of federal red-tape, or rather, an end in itself not a means to an end. The particular focus of this report centers around the HUD regulations that shape environmental assessment. That is: Does the EIS required by the regulations actually enhance environmental quality or is the EIS procedural requirement a waste of time, effort, and money because of a lack of substantive information? I will first begin by examining the National Environmental Policy Act, its policy and requirements. I will then describe the case of the Hannah Technology Research Center and the issues that were raised. A brief examination of the Environmental Impact Statement process and its effectiveness will then be discussed. Finally, I will conclude with some statements on possible solutions and additional research areas. II. NATIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY ACT In any proposal for construction or development, it is the usual practice, both from the standpoint of engineering and economics, to prepare an analysis of the need for the development and the relationship between its monetary costs and monetary benefits. More recently, society has recognized that in addition to these customary economic analyses and discussions of need, there should be a detailed assessment of the effect of a proposed development on the environment. Thus the preposed development's ecological benefits and costs are separated from its monetary costs and benefits. On January 1, 1970, the President signed the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969. Congress enacted this Act because of a belief that the policies and programs of the federal government, traditionally designed "to enhance the production of goods and to increase the gross national product, "were not designed to avoid environmental degra- dation and decay."1 The most important effect of the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA) is that it pro- vides "all agencies and all Federal officials with a legislative mandate and a responsibility to consider the consequences of their actions on the environment."2 The purpose of the Act is: To declare a national policy that 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 the understanding of the ecological systems and natural resources important to the nation; and to establish a Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) .3 Essentially, NEPA requires federal agencies to give full consideration to environmental effects in planning pro- grams. For instance, under this act, the Department of Housing and Urban Development must consider the 3 0 environmental impact of its housing programs in addition to their effectiveness in upgrading blighted urban areas. Therefore, grants, loans, loan guarantees and other forms of HUD assistance under Title I programs are subject to environmental review. Section 102 of NEPA requires that federal agencies prepare a detailed description of the effects of agency actions upon the environment in the form of an environ— mental impact statement (EIS). The EIS must be prepared prior to an agency's decision to undertake a project, and the project should be altered to mitigate any negative environmental effects disclosed in the impact statement. HUD has placed the requirement for impact assessment on the shoulders of communities that receive HUD funds. When is an EIS Required? Section 102(2)(c) of NEPA requires that an environmental impact statement be prepared for all "major federal actions significantly affecting the quality of the human environment." Although subject to interpreta— tion,4 three distinct requirements are apparent. First, the proposed action must be federal; second, the federal action must be major; and third, the major federal action must be one having a significant environmental impact. Many of the court cases arising under NEPA have been concerned with whether or not an action is federal. The ambiguity arises due to the fact that federal action can take on so many different forms. A direct expendi- ture of dollars by a federal agency is a clear example of federal action. Grants for the construction of infrastructure using urban development action grant (UDAG) monies from HUD are examples of such expenditure. Although partial federal participation in a project is often more problematic, such partial participation has generally been sufficient to "federalize" the proposed action. A major exception arises in the case of revenue- sharing grants made directly to the cities;5 because no federal "strings" are attached to these grants, they do not require the issuance of an EIS. Although the findings that are "major" or have "significance" are often considered to represent two different determinations, neither is subject to precise definition. Major has been defined as "not minor" or "requiring substantial planning, time, resources or expenditures."6 The intent is to differentiate admini- strative activities from decisions themselves. Similar vagueness exists in the definition of significant environmental impact. Cases attempting to interpret this troublesome phrase have raised some of the following r -_ ad considerations: Will the action arguably have an adverse impact? Is there a potential that the environment will be significantly affected? Does the action have an impor— tant or meaningful effect, direct or indirect upon a broad range of aspects of the human environment? The adoption of such imprecise language has caused problems both for agencies and for the courts. There is general agreement that the term "major" and "significant" repre- sent concerns whether the thresholds should be high or low. Additional insight is offered by the Council of Environmental Qualities' guidelines for environmental impact statements.7 These guidelines state that if a project is "controversial," than an EIS should be prepared. This implies that the agency should take into account the attitudes of the existing community in making these threshold determinations. By adopting the "contro- versial" requirement, the CEQ seemed to apply the lower threshold for E18 issuance. Because the Hannah Technology and Research Center utilizes HUD monies, the project is deemed eligible for an EIS. Furthermore, the proposed development is designed to house firms conducting recombinant DNA research and other hazardous materials, therefore, the project is con- sidered a controversial issue by state and federal agencies as well as residents, which requires an EIS to be done. The Effectiveness of Local Environmental Assessment A number of studies examining the environmental reviews prepared by local governments have been written. The agency that has been most critical of local govern— ment's performance is HUD. Environmental Review Activities of Grantees Participating in the Community Block Grant Program, prepared by HUD's Inspector General, claims that, "Based on our review, we believe definite improvement is needed in grantee performance in preparing environmental assessments."8 The Report of the Comptrol- ler General of the United States, Environmental Reviews Done By Communities: Are they Needed? Are they Adequate?, also expressed a lack of confidence in the local reviews, stating that in many cases communities have not done satisfactory environmental assessments. The particular deficiencies which they found are: 1) Communities did not totally describe the work to be done or define the environmental conditions existing in projects; 2) Reviews did not evaluate all the environmen- tal impacts of proposed projects; 3) Communities did not consider modifications to or alternatives to, proposed projects; and 4) Required historic analyses of properties in project areas were not carried out.9 The Advisory Commission on Intergovernmental Relations has taken a more neutral position: "The l) I” performance of local governments has ranged from out- 10 The Commission also notes standing to inadequate. that the performance of local governments in areas with existing state environmental protection agencies benefited from their increased familiarity and experi- ence with environmental issues. EPA and CEQ, the two agencies most directly involved with environmental issues, have been the least critical. It is their conclusion that cities receiving HUD grants can carry out NEPA responsibilities effec- tively.11 As the previous paragraphs indicate, there is no consensus about the success of the delegating of environ- mental responsibilities to local government. All the reports make recommendations for improving the regula- tions. However, these recommendations are limited to minor items such as the timing of different steps in the review process or the exemption of insignificant projects from review. There has been no discussion of the effec- tiveness of the reviews in carrying out NEPA's mandate of protecting and enhancing the environment. III. CASE STUDY Case Study Methodology When an individual picks up a history book and reads about the history of America, they have the benefit of reviewing data which has been sifted through and sorted many times. The facts have been studied by many people and the exact details placed in their perspective places. The influences surrounding events that lead to these situations are cast aside in response to the vast amount of space required by facts. In studying recent events an individual does not have the benefit of handling data which has been reviewed, rewritten, sorted and_organized. What is being studied is events that are happening as fast as can be recorded. Therefore, one must resort to a different type of study such as the case study methodology. In a case study an individual is able to report on the externalities involved in the events that are occuring. Rather than saying, "the project didn't go through" there exists the benefit of saying, "the project didn't go through because . . ." In case study approach we can use newspaper reports, magazine articles, first hand interviews of the people who compose the actors in the individual scenario under study, and response memos. The information is first hand, not that which has been processed. The benefit derived from a case study approach is direct access information. This gives a comprehensive look at events as they occured. Through the assembling of the data into one concerted report, the opportunity for 10 new insights arises. This method of data evaluation should give the writer and readers of the report insights into the details, costs, and benefits to be derived by the topic under study. This is the main purpose of a case study approach and the intended benefit to be derived from it. Hannah Technology and Research Center The Hannah Technology and Research Center (HTRC) project site is part of a larger parcel of land known as the Hannah property. The site encompasses a 200 acre parcel of land located in Section 20 of Meridian Township, Michigan (Figures 1 and 2). The Hannah property is loca- ted adjacent to Michigan State University, southeast of East Lansing. It is bounded on the north by Grand Trunk Western Railroad tracks, on the east by the Indian Lakes Estates subdivision, on the south by the Herron Acres subdivision and Twyckingham Apartments and on the west by Hagadorn Road. Because of a depressed economic environment and a declining automotive industry, there exists a need for a diversified economic base in mid-Michigan. In an effort to encourage new industry the City of Lansing's Economic Development Corporation has sought UDAG monies to provide .partial funding for the proposed research park. The HTRC project will involve the construction, acquisition and equipment for a multi-purpose facility I" I ‘ r' rlGURE 1 Hannah Technology and Research Center '7;;j"7’:"“"';: 1;”? "R “1"” I’ . "rim """””°"'I.i " i I L U ”I: ' 7' “I." ‘f‘ “I“ I .4. 5:: | - ADE LANSIN‘ 51 g; , ' n :3 , \ __-..,- a ‘1 . ' ‘ -. x 2' u ‘ ' (L: 5 \ :r- ': I ~‘..’; ; . . , :1 1", 1 g; E 1; 1: T\:;!; "53,;‘1 1 u; 5,5,! \ q: 3;”in H .r 1 1314: RA?H , ma? . b L .5 . - ~ I 5) may}, :91” ,9- -, 5-?» f: 5‘1““:z'c‘f'flf" ' .11 w?“ ‘ 3 ~ ;\' . I ’ .5; ' LC 19'; H3” ‘7; 7.” ' z: _‘ ,2" .-*:;.,II" ”:1 E ‘ fl ': 1 \5 u {osr ‘ I Ave." ~ ". I ' . ‘ é H; .. I...» «image-”fl 1' trim} the L x ";r I; I: “am”?! .' ~ "‘“HJ! i.‘ J ,. 1 .3 :5; .3, ‘. 1 5 ,_..,-. - . ,5 1 \ 1 v .1 a ‘ ' -. . _ , o _ ,‘“ , ' .. ' t E -_ - ._ L ' .,‘ .5.-. \- ‘ \t,“ 15“(-;,_.,"x .' z. 3“.- Hmfi‘y Sch. : .._ I 55 {‘7‘ 22:: g ”‘1 S ‘ _-_rx ,,- ti“. ‘ - a“. Q .‘3 a n .11.... , I: ‘r 1.11 1. f: 4 '; 1‘ if _ :_ “EN ‘( I.-. 3 ' ”I ' ' I: a. 5: . L J: :1 L5.-.“ -1 1. {a t I'. H I“ x \ ' it", t, ‘ALAIE’RZT 1‘ ’i "l I“ 2' Ave. ii * a “ _; ‘ .: " ; ' I. a \ J #1.. ‘{’JL-I'1.+.IV.:,:_. :4“; , ~-, -vfiy::il~:_§fm?, =__,.‘ .’_ , \ ‘1 J I ' . I. - . ’1. 1 ' “QB ‘ §3€0 ~ 2- 5.. 1% 1 " 1‘ »5,.' ‘x‘ '1 z "”"P-‘k— ..,1 ”‘ xi . 1 1 ' - - - §r ' 2‘ F‘crir ._., ” " ._;__" r. 5 1 .. ,. \l. 1 1“"; ”gm .183, 1.5 53:.“ 5 3| Ff»: _ —-1-4_,\_ ,,. 3 I J - 1.1 fl . 'g . x. :9 L; ) 1 ‘I my? 5, z-w" .-‘,' " ”f" t " .1 ( ’ 1'. K , { ’ “ ‘. 1 '\‘. H r‘ . ‘ ’ M) '2 ‘1 tr! 3 :1 . f; 3 [I ' F.,_‘;°r=:.:zr‘—': Hfiifl‘! ' . ‘ 1' . EM ' 1H ",1“: ,-“ 21 ‘ 1, )7 I) .3 "v ' ~ - v ./' ”Clue! Pfl.’ ' . a, i . Va ‘_ u :'~‘/ .1 2‘ Alt" 3 "t :4 '. I. (‘34h-\5 I ‘ b - 1:) I l ,.--». . .. «,4: '; ; ; 1. x , «2' . _.. I -', - I" '-, . ‘f‘,_‘ A". o 1 . 1' ‘ 7:1,; EM 7 "A :1. ‘i : l" Ffihfiw, I L) ] u ‘ , “I ,1; 'q T . 3' - ‘I a i ' ' fl)‘ mtg? '1“ ‘I I H" { f I K 3.3 j " ’ V ' ‘ b 9"" 5: , "3-‘i};~'.-’vv"‘ ’ £3 ‘ ‘3. I J . ‘ \ a , \ I‘: 5.3885n8'; RI"; D \ i a“. h , . I ) . I ‘.I ' f . I _. ‘ . . 1’ ‘u—v ‘ .. - V ' r‘ \ v. - a ,. \ In”! ,5 19 __ o "' " a i- s " ‘ I 1‘}? . ' .’ ‘x V" s . ‘Msu ...—._.._. Radio foam} .. (WKAR) ’ . :. , -' 1" l 1 3‘5 q ' . a . ..n "I a \o—. -7 -— —'~ 1 .; -: . ."z . , \I 1] (._, -. | ! ._ I Q I. 'H o ' . . . h. \- ‘I.’ ’.’. did I, ‘ i 1“". ° ..."'. ‘ ' -‘"' k”) L” H --.. NV ' R558 . \ I N, I... 5‘ , 4' ' \ b1, fv/EFYER -.‘ .V .11. I 1mH:.S - -' {i ‘..-—" ) (7‘ '. D 'VO'J")‘: . .‘l \ ‘ ' . . J IHANNAH TECHNOLOGY 9 . /.. ,. . . .' : ' 1: two RESEARCH. l ' m. .‘~, . V ,5 z : 2 'CENTER SITE U ‘7," ‘h - V : ,1 ; - '- m . - ~ . : . | IRVJ ' .‘. l. : ‘Q. ."I ' f' ‘ I. a \ ' ‘ - ‘- I- I ’. \ .J l. C ' ‘- ...'. o~". : ' 1‘ ‘. ' I . :.u ‘A..I " ‘- . z 3‘ J 86" ' . D... \‘ ‘KS . c o‘ '- ~-,—-o‘ ' .' o ‘ I ("r z o a. ', v- 5-3.6 I.. s. I v. .1 .{3 ,.;".£':' _. bpd- |‘; l.- ? '_"- n .‘V ‘ \‘é " '0 I. \\ (g 0'. ' “ s» “:n‘—J:'::."f'.'.: : ‘ - . -JI 4 . k . _ ' _ . l .’ G I ~ - r T 'l w.‘ l \\ I". » \ j o I 4 \ \ " O Y v. \ - '0 MlCHIGAN “TN 0 2000 FEET BI“? USGS Quadcmgh Eu! Lansing 1970 _ HANNAH PROPERTY BOUNDARY —-————— HTRC SITE BOUNDARY 6 COMWNWEAUH ASSOCIATES. we FIGURE 2 PROJECT DEVELOPMENT Hannah Technology and Research Center tulll‘ O“l'a...f.\ . ton -I1'IJ .Il'l'v . .- l' . I. I: . I. O. . o . . .I. v . -00.}..uf‘ ‘09 hi; .I 10".” I D11 - . r...- ..-..u| I. ......» h I A - .—. I . ., C - n t J. . 3- § 01”. v: 0., . A .. . ‘. ‘I l‘. ‘I’ij‘u. ‘ ...\..{W§.,.‘lh..ll. .\ IO_ 2.. 4. .A—flw . u .l...' “....1...u..~z......._v f........\8 (“4.5. V a. r ‘lx fléifiit‘ “he“ . x HANNAH PROPERTY ROUNDARV --———-— HTRC SITE ROUNDARY ---°---"" PROPOSED SANI‘IARY SEWER PROPOSED RTORM SEWER l |NORYH 000 PET MICHIGAN 6 COMMONWEALTH assocwrs. rNC 13 designed to meet the needs of companies and institutions involved in the field of high technology research and development. At this time, the developer has not yet engaged an architectural firm to provide engineering design for the project. Furthermore no firms have, as cfifyet,committed themselves to locate in the HTRC. As a consequence discussion of the HTRC facility has proceeded on a conceptual manner and the evaluation of potential impact dealt with genericly. Perhaps the most important aspect of this project is the philOSOphical approach proposed by the developer to meet the needs of small research firms. The proposed buildings will not be designed for the specific needs of any one prospective tenant, but rather will allow each tenant to design and complete space allocations individu- ally. Flexibility will be the primary objective and attraction of the HTRC facility. Once the needs of a prospective tenant are identified, the available labora- tory space and building utilities will be modified to accommodate these occupancy requirements. While other research parks usually sell small lots for development by research firms, the HTRC concept is to provide laboratory facilities for lease to small companies, allowing them to conduct their research and development activities on a cost effective basis. 14 The project is currently estimated to cost a maximum of $20 million. Project costs will be funded through the combination of the sale of the Charter Township of Meridian Economic Development Corporation bonds or notes, UDAG funds, and other funds provided or obtained by the Eyde Construction Company. UDAG funds will be pro- vided through a $3.3 million loan to the developer. As stated earlier, grants, loans, loan guarantees and other forms of HUD assistance are subject to environ- mental review. HUD has established guidelines (24 CFR Part 58) for determining when an EIS is required for assistance. The two circumstances which were applicable to the HTRC project and determined if an EIS was to be prepared included: 1. The project is determined to have a potentially significant impact on the human environment under the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969. 2. The project would provide enough additional water and sewer capacity to support 2,500 or more additional housing units. If the project is intended to serve non residential units, the applicant must determine how many residential units could be served if the capacity were to be used for housing. If the number is 2,500 or more, She threshold has been exceeded.1 At the early outset of preparation of the UDAG application, it was determined that due to concerns raised (.9 15 by local interest groups and state agencies on E18 should be prepared for the HTRC project. Commonwealth Associates Inc. of Jackson, Michigan, was retained to prepare the EIS. The EIS Process and Requirements The environmental review procedures for the UDAG program were written by HUD in consultation with CEQ. The regulations were published in the Federal Register on July 16, 1975. HUD's regulation of environmental assess- ment responsibilities takes the following form: Applicants must certify that they have met all the environmental review responsibilities established by HUD before funds may be committed. Approval of the community's certification by the Secretary of HUD discharges HUD's responsibilities under NEPA and the community takes full legal responsibility . . 13 for ltS actions. HUD's relinquishment of environmental assessment duties is stressed: . . . all applicants for assistance under Title I shall be required to assume responsibility for carrying out all of the provisions of NEPA relating to particular projects for 14 which the release of funds is sought. The regulations establish the procedural steps that a community must follow in order to receive funds. 16 The diagram on the following page outlines these steps (Figure 3). In addition to mandated procedural steps that a community must follow in order to receive funds, the regulations indicate in a limited way what the EIS must contain. Section 102(2)(c) of the National Environmental Policy Act identifies five areas that must be discussed in an environmental impact statement. These are: i. the environmental impact of the proposed action; ii. any adverse environmental effects which cannot be avoided should the proposal be implemented; iii. alternatives to the proposed action; iv. the interrelationships between local short-term uses of man's environment and the maintenance and enhancement 1f long—term productivity; and v. any irreversible and irretrievable commitments of resources which would be involved in the proposed action should it be implemented.1 At a minimum, an EIS should contain enough infor- mation to alert a decision maker to all known possible environmental consequences of an agency action prior to the time the action takes place. The statement should also contain sufficient detail to allow informed decision- making and be free of any "self serving assumptions." The statement should address specific aspects of the agency action and should not be a compilation of vague generalities. (J Figureg. Environmental Review Process: A Simplified View 3 First Steps: Environmental Review Record includes 1. Determine Existing Conditions 2. Identify Environmental Impacts An identification of the nature, magnitude and extent of all environmental impacts of the project, whether beneficial or adverse, should be made. 3. Examine Identified Impacts Suggest possible project modifications. 4. Examine Alternative Prgjects 5. Level of Clearance Finding Finding of No Sigpificant Impact (no EIS r quired) Notice of Finding_published in local papers and sent to inter- ested parties and relevant gov- ernment agencies. (15-day co ent period) (Notice of intent to request re- lease of f nds 5 days prior to:) Submit Request for Release of Funds to HUD (15-day coément period) Funds Released to the Community Finding of Significant Impact (EIS required) Notice of Intent to File an EIS published in local papers and sent to interested parties and relevant government agencies. The Notice should solicit com- ments and specify an estimated date for the completion and distribut'on of a Draft EIS. Public Hearings held (either prior to or after publication of the Dr ft EIS). Draft EIS Circulated to all apprOpria e parties. (90-day r view period) . Final EIS Published and Circu- lated (minimum 0-day review period) Rquest for Release of Funds from HUD (15-day ment period) Funds Released to Community 18 At the very least, NEPA is intended to be an environmental full disclosure law. The EIS must show that the require- ments