60 &
RESOURCE MANUAL FOR
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT
ASSESSMENT REVIEW
July 1998
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Office of Federal Activities
1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, MC-2251-A
Washington, B.C. 20460
-------
-------
RESOURCE MANUAL FOR
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT REVIEW
OVERVIEW
This Resource Manual was developed as a reference for professionals who expect to be
involved in the review and evaluation of environmental impact assessments. It
supplements the course student text: "Principles of Environmental Impact Assessment
Review".
Generic elements of the environmental impact assessment (EIA) process are
emphasized so that the resource manual is of use internationally to federal, state, tribal
and local agencies within and outside of the United States and both government
officials and non-governmental organizations involved in EIA review.
The resource manual is organized into seven sections:
Section 1 covers the major activities that are required for a successful environmental
impact assessment. These include: project initiation, scoping, assessment, decision-
making, and post-decision analysis. Section 1 is based upon the Sourcebook For The
Environmental Assessment Process, September 1993 (Second printing, November
1994). This document was prepared by USEPA with the Oakridge National
Laboratories in an interagency effort to provide, for the first time, a one-stop reference
source to meet the demand for information on the environmental impact assessment
process. It benefitted from international peer review as well. Minor modifications
made to the original Sourcebook text bring it up to date and make it consistent with the
Principles of Environmental Impact Assessment Review Student Text.
Under each activity, there is a subsection which describes needs, tools, issues, linkages
and references:
• The needs subsection highlights planning, information/data, and resources;
• The tools subsection describes methods and techniques that have been proven
useful;
• The issues subsection identifies important points, concerns and areas where
conceptual and analytical uncertainties exist;
• The linkages subsection calls attention to the nexus of environmental impact
assessment activities;
• The references subsection provides citations to published information found to
be particularly useful.
overview - 1
-------
-------
Because the sourcebook was developed in 1993, Section 1 contains some references
that may not be readily available, particularly to those in foreign countries or those just
starting environmental impact assessment programs.
Section 2 showcases a matrix of environmental assessment methodologies and contains
an example Environmental impact assessment evaluation checklist when conducting an
Environmental impact assessment review which is also printed in the Student text.
Since the Environmental impact assessment should rely on existing data, when feasible,
to characterize the existing environment, the matrix of methodologies also displays
various techniques that can be used to obtain the appropriate data.
Section 3 contains a list of specific characteristics of various types of industrial
discharges and a World Bank Table of project specific mitigation measures.
Section 4 is a placeholder for information on country-specific laws and background.
It now includes selected materials from the U.S. program including the Council on
Environmental Quality (CEQ) Regulations for Implementing the Procedural Provisions
of NEPA and the CEQ responses the Forty Most Asked Questions Concerning the
NEPA Regulations. During the Environmental impact assessment process, there are
related environmental review and consultation requirements (e.g., endangered and
threatened species, historic and cultural resources) which are frequently integrated with
the requirements of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). This reduces
duplicative effort and the potential for delays. The requirements of such laws are not
addressed in this resource manual, but brief summaries of the laws are included in this
section.
Section 5 includes a list of relevant environmental impact assessment guidance
developed by EPA and two examples in their entirety.
Section 6 is a glossary of terms.
Section 7 describes internet sites and also the contents of a compact disc resource
which is included in the resource manual pocket.
The resource manual is designed to be an easy-to-use reference manual, hence there is
some overlap or repetition with the student text. It is formatted to facilitate ease in
updating or addition of new material.
Permission to use copyrighted materials which were included in the original
Sourcebook was received from the following publishers as identified in the
Sourcebook: Academic Press (pg. 1.6.14-1); Elsevier Science Publishing Company,
Inc. (pgs.. 1.6.6-1, 1.6.10-1, 1.7.1-1 and Fig. 1.6.8-B); Environmental Law Institute
overview - 2
-------
-------
(pg. 1.4.1-1); International Association for Impact Assessment (pg. 1.8.1-1); Lewis
Publishers (pg. 1.6.8-4 and Fig. 1.6.8-A); National Association of Environmental
Professionals (pgs.. 1.2-1, 1.6.11-1, and 1.6.16-1); and Unwin Hyman, Ltd. (Fig.
1.6.8-C).
Slight modifications to format and content of the Sourcebook For The Environmental
Assessment Process have been made for consistency with the Principles of
Environmental Impact Assessment Review course including manual footnotes reference
the term environmental impact assessment process to be used in lieu of the term
environmental assessment process.
overview - 3
-------
-------
-------
•_j_ £_,_-==; _,_.
-------
RESOURCE MANUAL FOR
PRINCIPLES OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT REVIEW
TABLE OF CONTENTS
PREFACE ffi
ACRONYMS . vi
SECTION 1 The Environmental Impact Assessment Process 1-1
1.1 Evolution of the Environmental Impact Assessment Process 1.1-1
1.2 Overview of the Environmental Assessment Process 1.2-1
1.3 Project Initiation 1.3.1
1.3.1 Purpose and Need .....;.. 1.3.1-1
1.3.2 Statement of Underlying Need
Defines the Range of Alternatives 1.3.2-1
1.3.3 Techniques for Communicating with the Public 1.3.3-1
1.3.4 Identification of Issues 1.3.1-1
1.3.5 Generation of Alternatives 1.3.5-1
1.3.6 Environmental Impact Checklists 1.3.6-1
1.4 Decision to Proceed 1.4-1
1.5 Draft/Final Environmental Impact Assessment Analysis and
Documentation 1.5-1
1.5.1 Scoping 1.5.1-1
1.5.2 CEQ Scoping Guidance 1.5.2-1
1.5.3 Defining the Scope of Alternatives in an Environmental
Impact Statement After Citizens Against Burlington ... 1.5.3-1
1.5.4 Assessment . . . 1.5.4-1
1.5.5 Sources of Environmental Data 1.5.5-1
1.5.6 Computer-Aided Environmental Assessment 1.5.6-1
1.5.7 Impact Identification 1.5.7-1
1.5.8 Impact Analysis and Prediction 1.5.8-1
1.5.9 Summary of Fate Models Used in Environmental
Assessment 1.5.9-1
1.5.10 Problems Associated with Amalgamation of Data 1.5.10-1
1.5.11 Geographic Information Systems 1.5.11-1
1.5.12 Determination of Significance 1.5.12-1
1.5.13 Definitions for Describing Significance of Impacts .... 1.5.13-1
1.5.14 Determining Impact Significance in Environmental
Impact Assessment 1.5.14-1
1.5.15 Mitigation 1.5.15-1
1.5.16 An Unreadable Environmental Impact Statement-
-------
-------
is an Environmental Hazard 1.5.16-1
1.5.17 EPA Rating System Criteria for Draft Environmental _
Impact Statements 1.5.17-1
1.6 Decision Making 1.6-1
1.6.1 Indices ofEnvironmental Quality 1.6.1-1
1.7 Follow-Up 1.7-1
1.7.1 Negotiating a Monitoring Program 1.7.1-1
SECTION 2 Environmental Impact Assessment Methodologies and Evaluation
Checklist 2-1
2.1 Environmental Impact Assessment Methodologies 2.1-1
2.2 Environmental Impact Assessment Evaluation Checklist 2.2-1
SECTION 3 World Bank Project Specific Impacts and Mitigation Measures 3-1
3.1 Industrial Impacts 3.1-1
3.2 Project Specific Mitigation Measures World Bank Tables 3.2-1
SECTION 4 Country Specific Laws / Background 4-1
SECTION 5 Relevant U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Guidance for
Environmental Impact Assessment Reviewers 5-1
List of Relevent U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Guidance
5.1 Example 1: Ecological Impacts From Highway Development
5.2 Example 2: Environmental Impact Assessment Guidelines for
Mining (Ore and Coal)
SECTION 6 Glossary 6-1
SECTION 7 Environmental Impact Assessment Resources on the Internet and
Compact Disc 7-1
11
-------
-------
PREFACE
The United States Environmental Protection Agency [U.S. EPA] is increasingly being
asked for information on the environmental impact assessment decision-making process [EIA]
by foreign governments, states, localities and others. In partial fulfilment of this need, the
Office of Federal Activities [OFA], which has responsibility for environmental impact
assessment in EPA under the National Environmental Policy Act [NEPA] and for review and
comment on environmental impact statements [EISs] produced by all other U.S. federal
agencies under Section 309 of the Clean Air Act [§309], produced a series of documents
explaining the U.S. approach to EIA in order to meet this increased demand for information.
The purpose of the OFA/EIA program is to develop explanatory and training materials
in a generic sense which convey the collective knowledge and rationale for the way the
environmental impact assessment decision-making process is carried out in the United States.
Documents produced by the OFA/EIA program include:
• Bibliography and Abstract of Environmental Impact Assessment Methodologies,
December 1990 (included in Resource Manual). The bibliography focuses on the
English literature in this area. The purpose of the bibliography was to assist OF in
designing its program of technical assistance in the EIA process.
• Environmental Assessment Process, Technical Information Packet [TIP], March 1992
(EPA/600/M-91/037). This TIP is a part of a series of information packages prepared
for, and distributed by EPA's INFORTERRA office. Aimed at the international
community, the packages focus on key environmental and public health issues being
investigated by EPA.
• Principles of Environmental Impact Assessment, an international training course
module, September 1992, revised March 1998, English and Spanish editions. This
course, consisting of a Student Text and a Facilitator's Manual, was produced in
cooperation with EPA's Office of International Activities and funded through the
Agency for International Development. This is one of a series of EPA training
"modules" on various environmental topics, including Risk Assessment and
Environmental Enforcement. All were initially targeted for delivery to Central
European countries and have since then been delivered in Central and South America
and Asian countries. The objective of the EPA training is to encourage host countries
to use the module in turn to train others within their country.
• Principles of Environmental Impact Assessment Review, an international training
course module, May 1998. This course, consisting of a Student Text, Facilitator's
Manual and Resource Manual is designed as a follow-on to EPA's Principles of
Environmental Impact Assessment training course. The purpose of this course is to
instruct professionals who expect to be involved in the review and evaluation of EISs
how to review these documents for consistency and completeness.
-------
-------
ACRONYMS
AHPA Archeological and Historic Preservation Act
BLM Bureau of Land Management (U.S.)
CBA coat-benefit analysis
CBRA Coastal Barrier Resources Act
CBRS Coastal Barrier Resources System
CEQ Council on Environmental Quality
CFR Code of Federal Regulations
COE Corps of Engineers (U.S. Army)
CZMA Coastal Zone Management Act
DOE U.S. Department of Energy
e.g. for example
EA environmental assessment (process)
EC European Communities
ECE United Nations Economic Commission for Europe
EEC European Economic Community
EIA environmental impact assessment (document)
EIS environmental frnpgpt statement
EO Executive Order
EPA Environmental Protection Agency
ESA Endangered Species Act
etal. and others
et seq. and the following ones
FEARO Federal Environmental Assessment Review Office (Canada)
FEMA Federal Emergency Management Agency (U.S.; for Flood Hazard Boundary Maps)
FGDC Federal Geographic Data Committee
FNSI finding of no significant impact
FPPA Farmland Protection Policy Act
FR Federal Register
FWCA Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act
FWS Fish and Wildlife Service (U.S.)
CIS geographic information system
HEP habitat evaluation procedure
HUD Department of Housing and Urban Development (U.S.)
i.e. mat is
NEPA National Environmental Policy Act
NGO non-governmental organization
NHPA National Historic Preservation Act
P.L. Public Law
PDA post-decision analysis
ROD record of decision
SCS Soil Conservation Service (U.S.) ,
SEA strategic environmental assessment
U.S. DOI United States Department of Interior
U.S. United States
U.S.C. United States Code
USGS U.S. Geological Survey
WA Wilderness Act
WSRA Wild and Scenic Rivers Act
IV
-------
-------
SECTION 1.1
EVOLUTION OF THE ENVIRONMENTAL
IMPACT ASSESSMENT
-------
-------
EVOLUTION OF
ASSESSMENT
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT
In response to a growing awareness of environmental issues in the United
States in the 1960s, the public called on Congress to enact an environmental
policy with comprehensive goals that transcended the separate pollution and
resource management laws of the time. The product of this growing
environmental consciousness was the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA),
passed by Congress on December 22, 1969 and signed into law on January 1,
1970 (Part D). The statute is the foundation for consideration of environmental
factors in federal decisionmaking. Moreover, it provides for citizen involvement
and the opportunity for environmental litigation (Bear 1989).
NEPA ushered in a new era of environmental awareness in the United
States by requiring federal agencies to include environmental considerations early
in their plans and activities. And it created the environmental impact statement
for assessing the likely effects (both beneficial and adverse) of projects with
significant environmental impacts that agencies intend to build, finance, or
permit. NEPA also provided the interested and affected public with one of its
most important tools — the right to bring a case to court. Litigation during the
late 1960s and 1970s established that noneconornic interests (i.e., aesthetic,
conservational, recreational) were sufficient to establish "standing to sue". Over
time, NEPA litigation has declined because there are fewer threshold issues and
federal agencies have largely institutionalized NEPA and the results of the early
landmark cases in their implementing regulations. Although the effectiveness of
NEPA is often questioned, there is growing recognition that NEPA has made a
significant difference in federal agency decisionmaking (Wandesford-Smith and
Kerbavaz 1988).
In the more than two decades since the passage of NEPA, nations around
the world, international lending agencies, and multilateral development assistance
organizations have initiated similar requirements for assessing and managing
impacts upon the environment of their development activities (see Chapters 10 -
14, 16 and 17 of Wathern 1988). Nevertheless, in Europe and elsewhere, the EA
process is essentially reactive (i.e., applied after a decision is made).
Requirements for EA, if any, are found in existing statutes and regulations written
to address pollution control, safety, and land-use planning. It was not until
1.1-1
*For purposes of this document, the term Environmental Assessment (EA) will refer to the
Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) process.
-------
publication in 1985 of the Commission of the European Communities' directive
on EIA for projects that, at least for the member countries, a proactive approach
to environmental assessment was mandated. However, the directive only
specifies binding policy objectives; the means for implementing the conditions of
the directive are left to each member country. Thus, a wide range of approaches
have been adopted (Wathem 1988), mostly set within the context of existing
national planning law.
Historically, the emphasis in EA has been on project-level activities in
spite of the fact that EA legislation in some countries (e.g., United States, The
Netherlands, Canada) includes application to policies, plans, and programs.
However, there is growing recognition that EA should reach beyond projects to
broader governmental initiatives. In the United States, there is evidence that the
government is applying EA to programmatic decisions (e.g., the Department of
Army programmatic EIS for the Chemical Stockpile Disposal Program; the
Department of Energy (DOE) programmatic EIS for the Nuclear Weapons
Complex Reconfiguration; and the DOE programmatic EIS for Environmental
Restoration and Waste Management). Following programmatic decisionmaking,
more focused documents are prepared for specific projects within a program.
The secondary documents are tiered to the programmatic document; they do not
duplicate material found in the programmatic document but summarize such
information and incorporate it by reference.
In Europe, interest in EA for policies, plans, and programs is increasing
(Therivel et al. 1992). Under the auspices of the Senior Advisors on
Environmental and Water Problems of the United Nations Economic Commission
for Europe (ECE) and the sponsorship of the United States Environmental
Protection Agency, an international task force studied the application of the
principles of EA to policies, plans, and programs. The task fon;e agreed that the
principles of EA as applied to projects are appropriate for policies, plans, and
programs (ECE 1992). These include early initiation of assessment, scoping,
independent review, public participation, formal documentation, use in
decisionmaking, and post-decision analysis. However, the task force recognized
that timing and confidentiality might limit public involvement, independent
review, and scoping for policy-level decisionmaking. In order to enhance the
quality of information used in EA for policies, plans, and programs, the task
force agreed that efforts should be pursued to adapt and develop methodologies
and databases to promote exchange of information gained from ongoing
experiences. In addition, the Commission of the European Communities is
currently working on a new directive for strategic environmental assessment
(SEA), as it is called, for policies, plans, and programs.
An EA system is easiest to apply within a single jurisdiction. However,
there is an increasing need to extend EA to environmental issues that are regional,
1.1-2
-------
international, and sometimes global in scope. Burton et al. (1983) identify two
classes of problems associated with international EA:
• the action takes place in one or a few adjacent countries but the
impacts can be widespread (e.g., acid rain, nuclear power); and
• the action takes place in many countries and the impacts may be
distributed globally (e.g., stratospheric ozone depletion, CO2 -
induced climate change).
In the first case, conventional EA may be appropriate. For the second,
new procedures are needed that address state sovereignty, acceptable
administrative procedures for EA at the international level, and the determination
of significance. The 1991ECE Convention on Environmental Impact Assessment
in a Transboundary Context (signed by 28 countries, including the U.S., and the
European Community) obliges signatories to assess the environmental impacts of
certain listed activities likely to cause significant adverse transboundary effects.
Members are currently working on issues associated with transboundary EA
among which are: identification of parameters to determine which activities
require EA; criteria for determining the significance of transboundary impacts;
and standardization of methods for prediction of environmental impacts.
Obviously, the nature of EA will differ at the various levels of
decisionmaking. At the policy level, EA will be more general and less certain.
There will be difficulties associated with availability and/or existence of
information for assessment and less precise predictions about the consequences
of change. Nevertheless, these are not seen as insurmountable problems, because
decisionmakers may have lower expectations regarding precision at the policy
level (Wathern 1988). The longer lead time associated with policy development
should allow feedback between data generation and impact prediction, so that the
environmental effects of policies can be more precisely described and the impacts
more narrowly defined over time (Wathern 1988).
Currently with the growing interest in policy-level EA, there is increasing
recognition that EA should be used to assess the net contribution of a project,
program, or policy to sustainable development (Jacobs and Sadler 1990). The
1987 report of the Brundtland Commission, Our Common Future, sounded an
urgent call for global environmental strategies for achieving sustainable
development based on identification of long-term environmental issues and
definition of appropriate efforts to protect and enhance the environment. It went
on to state that "The ability to choose policy paths that are sustainable requires
that the ecological dimensions of policy be considered at the same time as the
economic, trade, energy, agricultural, industrial, and other dimensions—on the
same agendas and in the same national and international institutions."
1.1-2
-------
A strong case can be made for the use of EA to push decisionmakers
along the path of sustainability (Attachment LA). There is a clear indication that
environmental advisors working in bilateral and multilateral agencies see the
potential for modification of existing EA practices to encompass social impact
assessment, participatory appraisal procedures, and environmental economics.
However, moving from conventional EA to a wider more comprehensive
approach encompassing environmental/biological, social and economic elements
on an equal basis for developed and developing countries will require time,
cooperation, and agreement within and among governments.. It has been
suggested that EA procedures be developed for issues. For example, focusing on
a selected key problem with significant social and economic dimensions as well
as environmental implications such as hydropower dams with their associated
irrigation schemes, displaced people and refuges. Such an issue - based strategy
facilitates an interactive approach, building on lessons learned, and provides a
means to test and demonstrate the utility of a modified approach to EA.
The World Bank summarizes the basic operational principles of
sustainability as output and input rules:
• output guide. Waste emissions from a project should be within the
assimilative capacity of the local environment to absorb without
unacceptable degradation of its future waste absoirptive capacity or
other important services.
• input guide. Harvest rates of renewable resources should be
within the regenerative capacity of the natural system that produces
them. Depletion rates of nonrenewable resources should be equal
to the rate at which renewable substitutes are developed by human
invention and investment.
Although not addressed directly, the concept of sustainability has been
applied to carrying capacity studies in some 20 EAs prepared for World Bank
projects (e.g., for rangeland and power projects; Attachment LA). For most
animal species, carrying capacity is defined as the maximum population that can
be supported indefinitely in a given habitat without permanently impairing the
productivity of the ecosystem(s) upon which that population is dependent (Rees
1988). For human society, regional carrying capacity can be defined as the
maximum rate of resource consumption and waste discharge that can be sustained
indefinitely in a defined planning region without progressively impairing
bioproductivity and ecological integrity. Carpenter (1990) presents some practical
problems in measuring sustainability and describes ongoing studies that could lead
to better measurement of sustainability (Attachment LA).
Rees (1988) notes that while the notion of carrying capacity is
conceptually simple, various factors make it difficult to put-into practice (e.g.,
1.1-4
-------
interregional trade lessens the importer's concern for understanding the carrying
capacity of the exporter; cumulative demands for consumption and production
must be assessed). Nevertheless, he suggests four initial steps in recreating EA
to serve a viable role in sustainable development. They are as follows:
• Extend the scope of EA-like activities to cover the full range of
ecologically and socially relevant public and private sector
proposals and actions.
• Create a variety of institutional frameworks for EA adapted to the
increased diversity of initiatives and activities to be assessed.
These mechanisms should be equitable, reduce conflict of interest,
and promote political accountability.
• Develop methods for EA that reflect the discontinuous temporal
and spatial dynamics and the resilient properties of ecosystems.
This requires a balance between predicting the known and adapting
socially and politically to the uncertain and unknown in the natural
world.
• Implement the foregoing as part of a broader planning and
decision-making framework (e.g., community development
planning, regional planning) that effectively recognizes ecological
functions as limiting factors.
It is also recognized that indicators (i.e., measures) are needed for analysis
of sustainability and to guide policymakers in their evaluation of environmental
quality (Attachment l.A). Such indicators will be vital in the development and
monitoring of national sustainable development plans. Consider economic
planning without GNP or social planning without life expectancy and rates of
fertility, yet environmental planning has no comparable measures. New
indicators are needed to enable the integration of environmental, economic and
social concerns for sustainable development planning.
A mandate for sustainability in environmental planning is found in Section
101 of NEPA (Part D). It states that the ". . . Federal Government . . . will
foster and promote the general welfare, to create and maintain conditions under
which man and nature can exist in productive harmony, and fulfill the social,
economic, and other requirements of present and future generations of
Americans." Furthermore, the regulations that implement NEPA require analyses
that address the tenets of sustainability (e.g., the relationship between short-term
uses of man's environment and the maintenance and enhancement of long-term
productivity, and any irreversible or irretrievable commitments of resources).
1.1-5
-------
The challenge for the future is in how well we use the tools we have to fulfill our
responsibilities as trustees of the environment for succeeding generations.
REFERENCES
Bear, D. 1989. NEPA at 19: a primer on an "old" law with solutions to new
problems. Environmental Law Reporter 19 ERL 10060—10069.
Carpenter, R. A. 1990. Biophysical measurement of sustainable development.
The Environmental Professional 12:356-359.
Economic Commission for Europe (ECE). 1992. Application of Environmental
Impact Assessment Principles to Policies, Plans and Programmes.
ECE/ENVWA/27. United Nations, New York.
Jacobs, P. and B. Sadler (editors). 1990. Sustainable Development and
Environmental Assessment: Perspectives on Planning for a Common
Future. Canadian Environmental Assessment Research Council, 13th
Floor, Fontaine Building, 200 Sacre-Couer Blvd., Hull, Quebec. K1A
OH3.
Rees, W. E. 1988. A role for environmental assessment in achieving sustainable
development. Environmental Impact Assessment Review 8:273-291.
Rees, W. E. 1990. Economics, ecology, and the role of environmental
assessment in achieving sustainable development. In: Sustainable
Development and Environmental Assessment: Perspectives on Planning
for a Common Future (eds., P. Jacobs and B. Sadler), Canadian
Environmental Assessment Research Council, 13th Floor, Fontaine
Building, 200 Sacre-Couer Blvd., Hull, Quebec. K1A OH3.
Therivel, R., E. Wilson, S. Thompson, D. Kearney, and D. Pritchard. 1992.
Strategic Environmental Assessment. Earthscan Publications Ltd.,
London. 181 pp.
Wandesforde-Smith, G. and J. Kerbavaz. 1988. The co-evolution of politics and
policy: elections, enterpreneurship and EIA in the United States. In:
Environmental Impact Assessment (ed., P. Wathern), Unwin Hyman,
Boston.
Wathem, P. 1988. The EIA directive of the European Community. In:
Environmental Impact Assessment (ed., P. Wathern), Unwin Hyman,
Boston.
1.1.6
-------
Westman, W. E. 1985. Ecology, Impact Assessment, and Environmental
Planning. John Wiley & Sons, New York. 532 pp.
World Commission on Environment and Development. 1987. Our Common
Future. Oxford University Press, New York. 400 pp.
1.1-7
-------
1.1-8
-------
SECTION 1.2
OVERVIEW OF THE ENVIRONMENTAL
IMPACT ASSESSMENT PROCESS
-------
-------
THE ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT PROCESS
The Environmental Assessment (EA) process includes a variety of
activities aimed at providing information to decisionmakers to ensure that
environmental considerations are a part of decisionmaking (Figure B-l). The
scope of these activities will vary depending on the nature of the proposed action,
its potential for impacts to the environment, public interest, and the
decisionmaking culture of any given industry or government. Nevertheless, there
are some basic elements that are recognized as generally essential to successful
EA. These include:
• Initiation (including identification of issues and generation of
alternatives)
• Scoping
• Assessment
• Decisionmaking
• Post-Decision Analysis
During initiation , which is generally an internal process occurring early
in project formulation, the proponent evaluates the purpose and need for the
proposed action and the required level of EA review and documentation (e.g., in
the U.S., categorical exclusion, environmental assessment, or environmental
impact statement). Predetermined lists, a screening procedure, or a combination
of these approaches can be used to determine the potential impacts of a proposed
action. Tentative issues and alternatives are identified during initiation.
Once a decision is made that EA is necessary for a proposed action, a
team is assembled and the formal scoping process begins. This process usually
includes consultation within and between governmental departments and public
and government participation in one or more scoping meetings. The purpose of
scoping is to identify reasonable alternatives and issues and concerns related to
the proposed action; provide early identification of areas (including data gathering
and research) that will need attention for .evaluation of their significance; and
facilitate consideration of alternatives and mitigation. Scoping is an ongoing
process, but it. is most effective and useful when begun early in the planning
process.
Following the formal part of the scoping process, the proponent decides
what must be considered in the analysis and assessment part of the EA process
and what can be eliminated. These early decisions should be documented. Based
on guidance from the proponent, an interdisciplinary team divides the analytic and
1.2-1
*For purposes of this document, the term Environmental Assessment (EA) will refer to the
Environmental Impact. Assessment (EIA) process.
-------
THE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT PROCESS
Monitor and
Follow-up
PROJECT
IMPLEMENTATION
site preparation
construction
operation
monitor mitigation activities
monitor environmental impact
review policy/program
Purpose and Need
(for project, plan,
policy, program)
EIA Policies/
Requirements/
Exclusions (
Decision
Making
on alternatives
and
mitigation
Record of
Decision
Review and
Comment
Prepare Final
EIA Document
Decision to
Proceed
with
EIA
Prepare Draft
EIA Document
Mitigation
Plan
Document
PURPOSE AND NEED
SCOPING
-govt
-oublic
Identify
ALTERNATIVES
identify
TECHNICAL and
INTERESTED PARTIES
Identify
issues
and
concerns
Collect and Compile
DATA
Describe
ENVIRONMENTA
SETTING
Assess
IMPACTS
or alternatives
identify prediction forecasting approach
select and apply prediction forecasting
Identify
MITIGATION
approaches
Identify
"PREFERRED"
ALTERNATIVE
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
-------
writing responsibilities and draft and final EA documentation is prepared. Draft
•EIAs for proposed actions with potential for significant impacts to the human
environment should generally be circulated for review and comment to the public,
non-governmental organizations, and government agencies as appropriate. In the
U.S., expert agency comments and public scrutiny are essential to implementing
NEPA. Following review of comments, the EA team prepares final documentation
which the proponent makes available to all interested and affected entities.
Decisionmaking for major proposed actions follows internal and public
review and distribution of the EIA. The result of the decision process is
formalized by publication of a "record of decision" or a determination that
identifies the alternatives considered, which of them are environmentally
preferable, the one chosen to be implemented, and any mitigation measures to
reduce or eliminate adverse effects of unavoidable environmental impacts. It also
may discuss preferences among alternatives based on economic and technical
considerations and statutory constraints. An EIA is written to inform ultimate
decisionmakers about the consequences of their choice but decisions are also
made during the EA process that influence the choice of alternatives and other
aspects of the proposed action (e.g, design and mitigation measures). An inadequate
EIA, particularly for major or controversial actions, can result in time consuming and
costly litigation that can cause modification, delay, or cancellation of projects.
Post-decision analysis (PDA) is increasingly being recognized as an
important element of an EIA (ECE 1990). Ideally post-decision analysis
encompasses evaluation of scientific and technical issues procedural and
administrative matters during and after implementation of a'proposed action. The
nature of PDA studies depends on the proposed action, but often includes compliance
monitoring studies required by regulatory agencies, baseline monitoring (prior to
construction and operation), environmental effects monitoring, and mitigation
monitoring. The information provided by the PDA studies not only allows for
project modifications if needed but also results hi a better understanding of impact
predictions and the effectiveness of mitigation measures which can be applied to
future activities of the same type.
1.2-3
-------
[REFERENCES
Culhane, P. J., H. P. Friesema, and J. A. Beecher. 1987. Forecasts and
Environmental Decisionmaking. Westview Press. 306 pages
Economic Commission for Europe (ECE). 1990. Post-Project Analysis in
Environmental Impact Assessment. ECE/ENVWA/11. United Nations,
New York. 54 pages.
Hollick, M. 1986. Environmental impact assessment:
evaluation. Environmental Management 10:157-178.
Jin international
1.2-4
-------
SECTION 1.3
PROJECT INITIATION
-------
-------
CHAPTER 2
PROJECT INITIATION
Project initiation is generally an internal agency process preceding
interagency and public involvement that defines the purpose and need for the
proposed activity, generates tentative alternatives, and determines the appropriate
level of environmental review and documentation (e.g. in the US., categorical
exclusion, environmental assessment or environmental impact statement).
Predetermined lists, a screening procedure or a combination of these approaches can
be used to determine the potential impacts of a proposed action. Management
commitment to and support of the EA process must be established early in the
planning process and continue througout the process in order for EA to influence
decisionmaidng. Although proposals are generated by government
decisionmakers, government and public applicants for permits or funding, court
orders, and legislative commands, the proponent (i.e., the agency) has the
responsibility for developing an interdisciplinary approach to EA that is integrated
with planning and decisionmaidng.
NEEDS
The project initiation phase requires a clearly stated proposal, succinct
statements of purpose and need, environmental information for screening to
determine the appropriate level of EA, formation of an EA team, and determination
of responsibility for coordination, record keeping and public involvement.
• Environmental Information. The EA process begins when a
proposal is sufficiently well-developed that an environmental
information packet can be prepared. The proponent (agency,
applicant, grantee, or permitee as the case may be) assembles the
packet, generally from existing information and comparison to
similar activities. (Activities that can be categorically excluded
from detailed EA rarely require information beyond that found in
existing sources; activities mat require EA may require additional
or new information.) The information is used by the proponent to
determine the level of EA required for a proposed activity and also
it can be used as the basis for public information for scoping.
1.3-1
*For purposes of this document, the term Environmental Assessment (EA) will refer to the
Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) process.
-------
The packet should describe the potential environmental
impacts of the proposed action and be of sufficient scope that it
can be used to determine if and how the proposal should be
pursued. At the initiation stage, knowledge and understanding of
the EA requirements and procedures, management support, good
communication, sufficient information, and logic are required.
Above all, the content and extent of the environmental
information, and all subsequent EA documentation, must be in
proportion to the environmental issues and to the relative
importance of those issues to decisionmaking. A checklist may be
helpful at this stage to identify basic issues related to proposed
projects (Attachment 2.B).
To the extent possible and as relevant to the proposed activity, the
environmental information packet should include
discussion/description of the following items:
- Need for the proposed activity
The proposed activity
— description of the proposed activity in appropriate detail
~ current management or other activities in the area
~ known potential impacts of the proposed activity
— important elements of the existing environment (physical,
biological, and social characteristics)
— known public use/interest in the area
— reasons for bounding the study area
possible concerns
Purpose (objectives) of the proposed activity
Decisions to be made
— reference to any higher-level policy or planning or
existing environmental documents that might influence
the decisions to be made
Preliminary alternatives to the proposed action
— including the no-action alternative (which provides the
baseline information for assessment)
Anticipated level of EA documentation including rationale
Activities to be considered in the EA (scope)
— connected, cumulative, or similar activities
— mitigation measures
Environmental laws
— associated review, consultation, or permit requirements
Federal, state, or local government agencies with jurisdiction
by law or expertise
1.3-2
-------
names of agencies and point of contact with addresses
and telephone numbers
tentative roles of agencies
formal/informal agreements needed and responsible
persons
Background information documents (e.g., prefeasibility
studies, environmental studies)
Schedule
EA milestones, comment periods, and approval dates
proposed implementation dates
role of the decisionmaker in the assessment process and
the review of EA documentation
- Budget
Responsibility
proponent point-of-contact (oversight)
team leader
team members
other expertise as needed
editing, graphics
Public involvement.
proposed public involvement strategy
— known affected or interested persons, agencies,
organizations
Screening. Once the environmental information is available, the
proposed activity can be reviewed in order to determine the
appropriate level of environmental assessment. This internal
procedure is often referred to as "screening".
There are two approaches to screening, categorical and
discretionary, and most EA requirements [e.g., the CEQ
regulations implementing NEPA and the EC Directive on
El A, 85/337/EEC (1985)] provide for a combination of
approaches.
Under the categorical approach, the proposed activity is
compared to pre-determined lists of specific categories of
activities that 1) can be excluded from EA or will 2) always
be subject to EA. Often the applicability of the exclusion list
is determined by eligibility criteria (e.g., if the proposed
activity has the potential to affect a valued wetland or other
sensitive area, it will be subject to EA even if it is on the
exclusion list). The categorical approach reduces uncertainty
1.3-2
-------
and delay in determining which proposed activities will be
subject to detailed EA.
Under the discretionary approach, if the proposed activity
cannot be categorically excluded, the proponent decides on the
appropriate level of EA. An (EA) document is prepared to
assess the environmental significance of the proposed activity.
— If it is determined that the proposed activity may
significantly affect the quality of the human environment,
then a full environmental assessment is nsquired, starting
with the scoping process and culminating in an
environmental impact assessment (EIA) that documents
for the decisionmaker the information needed to decide
between the proposed activity or one of its alternatives.
If it is determined that the proposed activity will not
significantly affect the quality of the human environment
and/or that potentially less significant impacts can be
easily mitigated, then the proponent prepares a brief
document that explains why the project will not
significantly affect the environment, and if applicable,
describes the mitigation measures.
Public involvement in the EA process usually begins when the
decision is made that an EIA is required.
Interdisciplinary EA Teams. When the screening process results
in a decision that an EIA is required, the proponent is responsible
for preparation of the document. Quality EA arid documentation
is dependent on an experienced EA team leader with a general
understanding of all of the issues and an interdisciplinary team of
technical and scientific specialists chosen to match the issues
associated with the proposed action and its alternatives (Canter
1991). The U.S. CEQ regulations require this interdisciplinary
approach. Furthermore, the regulations require that the .
professional qualifications of the team members (i.e., their.
expertise, experience, and professional disciplines) be included in
an EIA.
Teams are assembled from staff members, other government
agencies or are hired consultants [e.g., non-governmental
organizations (NGOs), universities]. Occasionally, team
membership can only be determined after completion of the
scoping process. Generally, three types of members are selected:
1.3-4
-------
a team leader, who is responsible for the overall analysis,
document preparation, and coordination with the proponent's
point-of-contact;
the core team members, who are responsible for analysis of
specific issues; and
extended team members, who provide information as needed.
The team is responsible for thorough and correct analyses that
provide a basis for decisionmaking by the proponent. A team is
most likely to produce a competent assessment when it has a
thorough understanding of the EA process and prior experience
with similar environmental and project issues. Attachment 2.C
outlines the characteristics and responsibilities of an EA team
leader, the team members, and the extended team members.
Proponent Responsibilities. Successful EA depends not only on
adequate environmental information and technical expertise, but
also on good planning, management-support, and coordination with
the decisionmaker. The proponent must provide the team with:
a clear and concise statement of work including the expected
technical and procedural standards to be met;
available background information (e.g., the environmental
information packet);
EA document standards (e.g., word processing, format,
graphics, number of pages, printing, distribution);
a single point-of-contact selected by the decisionmaker who
understands the issues and possible decisions and who has
been delegated the authority to make interim decisions;
a reasonable schedule for deliverables;
budgetary allocations; and
procedures for review and comment, to include consolidation
and clarification of comments by the point-of-contact before
delivery to the EA team.
The proponent is responsible for the quality and accuracy of the
information and analyses in an EA document, as well as the
conduct of the EA process (i.e., interagency coordination, scoping,
public hearings, document review, and general oversight).
1.3-5
-------
Planning Records. Because records documenting the EA
procedures may be required by law, it is important that a plan for
record keeping is established early in the planning process. When
the EA decision document is signed, the files should be closed.
However, the records must be available upon request except for
classified information or information on specific locations of
endangered species or cultural resources which may be exempt
from the law. Such classified information should be kept in a
separate and locked file.
The planning record is a critical part of a proponent's defense
should a lawsuit occur. The object is to be able to document that
the procedural requirements of EA were followed in good! faith and
that a reasonable decision was made based on the information
obtained using the procedures. Depending on the size of the
project, a data base index might be useful in tracking documents,
letters, etc. Fields could be: date, author, agency, organization,
addressee, document type, and issue.
1.3-6
-------
The following suggestions for organizing planning records are
excerpted from the'U.S. Forest Service Litigation Support Handbook:
- Establish the organizational structure, put it in writing, and
delegate authority to one person for maintaining the record.
- Use a format based on subject (not date or EIA chapter) so that
someone not familiar with the project or with the EA process can
retrieve documents easily. Use headings such as:
External Agency Communications
Internal Agency Communications
Public Involvement
Resource References and Reports
Maps and Other Visuals
Data and Inventories
NEPA Documents
Decision Documents
- Format all documents to a standard size and place in 3-ring binders
or similar folders.
- Signatures must be original, carbon copy, or electronic copy ("/s/H
is not admissible in U.S. courts).
- Margins should be no less than 1".
- Attach all slides and photographs (including photos of oversized
maps and visuals) to standard size paper.
- Replace double-sided document with single-sided copies; remove
all paper clips, post-it notes and staples; copy all documents
clearly, correctly, and completely; retype all illegible documents,
mark them as duplicates, and include the original and the duplicate
in the record.
- Documents should be ordered chronologically within each
subdivision.
- Pages in the planning record should be clearly numbered
consecutively, with page 1 being the first page of the oldest
document.
TOOLS
Regulations, Guidelines. United States government agencies are
required to formally adopt procedures to implement the federal
regulations. Among other things, the procedures must specify criteria
for and identification of categories of action that normally:
- do not require environmental impact statements (EISs);
- do not require an EIS or an environmental assessment (EA)
document (these are categorical exclusions); or
- require EAs but not necessarily EISs.
1.3-7
-------
These categories of action are used in the screening process to
determine the appropriate level of EA for a proposed activity. The list
of categorical exclusions includes actions that do not individually or
cumulatively have significant effects based on agency experience.
In addition, agencies should prepare written procedures/guidelines/
handbooks that describe their particular EA process and establish
offices with responsibility for document review and oversight.
ISSUES
• EA and Planning. Environmental assessment must be integrated with
other planning at the earliest possible time so that the EA
documentation will be completed and ready to be included in every
report or recommendation on proposals submitted to the decisiionmaker
A "proposal" originates when an agency has a goal and is actively
preparing to make a decision on one or more means of accomplishing
it, and the effects of that decision can be meaningfully evaluated. EA
documents should not be prepared until prospective proposals are more
concrete than mere contemplation. However, EA document
• preparation should not be put off so as to delay underlying actions.
The initiation of EA should coincide with the feasibility analysis stage
of projects and the EA documentation should be available before the
project has reached a stage of investment or commitment to
implementation likely to determine subsequent development or restrict
later alternatives.
All government agencies should adopt procedures to integrate EA with
their planning processes so that projects are better sited and better
designed and proposals that have unacceptable environmental impacts
will be modified or canceled. However, the extent mat EA is
integrated into decisionmaking will vary from agency to aigency and
sometimes from project to project (Bear 1987). Some agency officials
resist the application of EA, citing conflicting purposes between EA
and their "real" mission. Other agency decisionmakers believe the
primary value of compliance is to avoid litigation. While in some
agencies, the EA process is a vital part of their decisionmaking
process. How an agency views and implements the EA process will
depend on the commitment of the decisionmaker(s), high-level staff in
environmental review or compliance offices, and the solicitator's or
general counsel's office.
• Coordination with Other Laws. Environmental impact sissessments
should be prepared "concurrently with and integrated with" other
environmental analyses and reviews to reduce duplication between
federal, regional and local EA activities. In addition to the U.S.
1.3-8
-------
federal laws listed in Part D, other federal laws contain provisions that affect the
content and scope of EA under certain circumstances. Laws on water pollution
control, clean air, and surface mining control and reclamation are good examples.
Permits or licenses may also require baseline data. There is no one way of
accomplishing this integration because of differences in agencies' projects and
differences in regional and local procedures. However, the EA process lends
itself to a unifying role because it deals with every aspect of the environment, and
thus provides a focus for multiple approval processes (Yost 1989). The key to
success lies with early planning and some flexibility in project scheduling.
The proponent must:
- establish contact with the relevant agencies to learn their concerns
and requirements;
- determine how cooperation can best be achieved;
- prepare a project schedule that coordinates agency requirements
and EA milestones, and
- maintain contact to ensure that cooperation continues.
LINKAGES
Initiation may be the most important element of the EA process. At this
time, commitments are made to support (philosophically and financially)
consideration of the environment in decisionmaking. Tentative alternatives are
generated and the level of EA is determined. These activities influence the
makeup of the EA team, the assessment effort, and the documentation required.
Integration of the early stages of EA with the feasibility discussions and planning
for proposed actions results in more effective compliance with environmental
standards; improvements in the design and siting of construction projects; savings
in capital and operating costs; speedier approval of development applications; and
the avoidance of costly adaptations to projects once in operation (Lee 1988).
REFERENCES
Bear, D. 1987. Does NEPA make a difference. In: Environmental Impact
Assessment, Proceedings of a Conference on the Preparation and Review
of Environmental Impact Statements, West Point, New York. New York
State Bar Association, One Elk Street, Albany, New York 12207.
329 pp.
Canter, L. W. 1991. Interdisciplinary teams in environmental impact
assessment. Environmental Impact Assessment Review 11: 375-387.
Environmental Law Institute. 1989. NEPA Deskbook. Environmental Law
Institute, Washington, D.C. 438 pp.
1.3-9
-------
European Economic Community. 1985. Council Directive on the Assessment
of the Effects of Certain Public and Private Projects on the Environment.
85/337/EEC. Official Journal of the European Communities, No. L 175,
S.7.85. pp. 40-48.
Kirsch, P. J., and C. M. Rippy. 1991. Defining the scope of alternative in an
EIS after Citizens Against Burlington. Environmental Law Reporter 12
ERL 10701-10710.
Lee, N. 1988. Training requirements for environmental impact assessment. In:
Environmental Impact Assessment. Theory and Practice (ed. P.
Wathern). Unwin Hyman, Boston. 332 pp.
Stein-Hudson, K.E. 1987. How local and regional public participation affect the
EIS process. In: Environmental Impact Assessment, Proceedings of a
Conference on the Preparation and Review of Environmental Impact
Statements, West Point, New York. New York State Bar Association,
One Elk Street, Albany, New York 12207. 329 pp.
U.S. Forest Service. 1989. Litigation Support Handbook 1509.21, Region 2,
Supplement 3. Denver, Colorado.
Yost, N. C. 1987. One project-one process: an applicant's perspective on
coordinating the EIS process at the federal and state level. In:
Environmental Impact Assessment, Proceedings of a Conference on the
Preparation and Review of Environmental Impact Statements, West Point,
New York. New York State Bar Association, One Elk Street, Albany,
New York 12207. 329pp.
1.3-10
-------
PURPOSE AND NEED
Introduction: Defining the Purpose of and Need for a Proposed Action
Schmidt, O. L. 1988. The statement of underlying need defines the range of
alternatives in environmental documents. Environmental Law 18:371-381.
1.3.1-1
*For purposes of this document, the term Environmental Assessment (EA) will refer to the
Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) process.
-------
1.3.1-2
-------
Introduction: Defining the Purpose of and Need for a Proposed Action
In the United States, an EIS must briefly specify the underlying purpose and need to
which an agency is responding in proposing alternatives, including the proposed action. The less
detailed U.S. NEPA document (i.e., an environmental assessment) must have a statement of
underlying need, but need not have a statement of purposes.
Webster defines need as the lack of something requisite, desirable, or useful or a
condition requiring relief. Purpose is defined as an object or end to be achieved. Consequently,
the two terms should be seen as complimentary. The EIA discussion of purpose and need should
demonstrate that the purpose of a proposed action is to attain or achieve at least part of the
underlying need for the proposed action (Kirsch and Rippy 1991).
The CEQ regulations and most U.S. agencies do not distinguish between purpose and
need and the terms are used together and separately in NEPA documents. Such flexibility is
considered desirable because of the widely disparate nature of agency activities to which the
CEQ regulations apply. However, lack of distinction in agency statements of purpose and need
can lead to litigation (Attachment 2.A).
Both the CEQ regulations and case law recognize that it is the statement of need chat
defines the scope of alternatives in an EIA (Kirsch and Rippy 1991). If the need for an action
is defined too broadly, the number of alternatives that might require analysis could be limitless.
For example, a Department of Interior EIA defined the underlying need for the issuance of oil
and gas leases in the Gulf of Mexico as the need to meet the Nation's energy crisis.
Subsequently, as a result of Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc. v. Morton, the court
required the agency to consider all reasonable ways to meet the energy crisis in their EIS
(including eliminating oil import quotas, developing oil shale, tar sands and geothermal
resources, desulfurizing coal, and coal liquefaction and gasification) even though the agency did
not have the authority to implement all of the alternatives.
On the other hand, it is inappropriate in most situations, to define the underlying need
so narrowly that only the proposed action is applicable. For example, if a site needs to perform
laboratory analyses within 24 hours of water sampling in order to meet quality assurance
procedures, an inappropriate statement of need would be that the agency needs to construct a
new onsite laboratory. A new onsite laboratory is but one way of meeting the agency's need;
other alternatives might include expansion of existing onsite facilities or use of nearby off site
facilities.
In general, it is useful to think of the purpose of the proposed action as one way to
satisfy the underlying need for the action. The statement of need should be an objective
description of the reason that the proposed action is being pursued (Kirsch and Rippy 1991).
The statement of purpose follows from the statement of need. It can.be a subjective statement
1.3.1-3
-------
that refers to the agency's mission, reflects the limits on the agency's statutory authority,
explains how the proposed action satisfies the need, and justifies the decision to choose the
preferred alternative (Kirsch and Rippy 1991).
1.3.1-4
-------
THE STATEMENT OF UNDERLYING NEED
DEFINES THE RANGE OF ALTERNATIVES IN
ENVIRONMENTAL DOCUMENTS
BY
OWEN L. SCHMIDT*
I. INTRODUCTION
We propose to build a dam because we need a dam. We pro-
pose to cut trees because we need to cut trees. We propose to drill
wells because we need to drill wells. We propose action because
we need action.
This simple logic may satisfy the unenquiring, but probing
minds want to know the underlying reason action is proposed.
Without knowing why action is needed, we cannot know what
other ways we might have to meet those needs, or what would
happen if we did not meet those needs. We cannot know if any
action at all is really needed.
t—*
i-0 When Federal agencies propose to take action, we expect an
V explanation of what action is proposed, what need would be met
by taking that action, what alternative actions would also meet
that need, and we expect to see a comparison of the alternatives
alongside the proposed action. In short, this is the decision mak-
ing process that was perhaps envisioned by the National Environ-
mental Policy Act (NEPA)1 and its implementing regulations.'
Are Federal agencies fulfilling this vision?
II. THE UNDERLYING PURPOSE AND NEED
Environmental impact statements (EISs) must include a
brief statement of "the underlying purpose and need to which the
agency is responding in proposing the alternatives including the
' Attorney, Office of General Counsel, Bonneville Power Administration
(BPA), Portland, Oregon; J.D. 1977, Northwestern School of Law of Lewis &
Clark College; B.A. 1969, St. Cloud State University; M.A. 1973, St. Cloud State
University. The views expressed here are those of the author, and not necessarily
those of BPA, the United States Department of Energy, or the U.S. Government.
1. 42 U.S.C. 55 4321-4370 (1982).
2. 40 C.F.R. 55 1500-1508 (1987).
372
ENVIRONMENTAL LAW
I
J:371
proposed action."' These few words have great impact on the con-
tents of an EIS, but the Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ)
does not elaborate on what it meant by the words "underlying
purpose and need."
Maybe CEQ meant a single statement of "purpose and
need," using two words to express the concept when one might
have been enough, or maybe CEQ meant two statements, one for
"purpose" and one for "need." CEQ does not say what it meant.4
The two words have different meanings. A "need" is the lack
of something requisite, desirable, or useful, or a condition requir-
ing supply or relief.' Purposes, on the other hand, are goals, or
ends to be attained.* Thus if we give these two words their literal
meanings, a statement of underlying purpose and need will actu-
ally have two parts: needs (lack of something wanted, presence of
something not wanted), and purposes (goals, ends to be attained).
The words are not synonyms. A need is not a purpose, and a
purpose is not a need. If use of both words was intentional, then
Federal agencies must write a "purpose and need" statement in
two parts. If use of both words was in any way unintentional,
then Federal agencies may have more latitude in how they pre-
pare this section of an EIS.
I suggest that whether or not use of two words was inten-
tional, purposes and needs are different elements of an EIS. Fed-
eral agencies should write a statement of needs, and a statement
of purposes. Each has its place in the decision making process. If
agencies do that, their EISs will take on a structure like that
presented in this article.
3. 40 C.F.R. § 1502.13 (1987).
4. See CEQ, Forty Most Asked Questions Concerning CEQ's National Envi-
ronmental Policy Act Regulations, 46 Fed. Reg. 18,026 (1981) [hereinafter Forty
Questions). This document's title is self-explanatory; however, it does not address
or explain the "underlying purpose and need" requirement.
5. "Needs" is defined as "2a: a want of something requisite, desirable, or use-
ful;" and "3: a condition requiring supply or relief." A "need" can be seen as the
lack of something wanted, or the presence of something unwanted. WEBSTER'S
THIRD NEW INTERNATIONAL DICTIONARY (1971).
6. "Purposes" is defined as "an object to be attained: an end or aim to be
kept in view in any plan, measure, exertion, or operation." Id. Thus a "purpose"
can be seen as a goal to be attained, perhaps while seeking to satisfy an underlying
need.
-------
ENVIRONMENTAL DOCUMENTS , 373
IH A PROPOSAL FOR ACTION TO MEET AN UNDERLYING NEED
The NEPA process starts with a proposal for action.7 A
posal for action starts with an underlying need.
pro-
The CEQ's regulation on underlying need seems to suggest
that needs come first—"the underlying purpose and need to
which the.agency is responding in proposing the alternatives in-
cluding 'the proposed action." Agencies respond to needs. Needs
come first, then agencies respond to them by proposing action.
What action? Action that somehow meets the underlying
need. Action that supplies something that is lacking, or takes
away something that is not wanted.
There is no rule that the action must completely meet the
underlying need,' or be the only way to meet the underlying need,
or even be the best way. The rule is that there must be some sort
of relationship between the proposed action and the underlying
_ need.
o>>
to For example, a Federal agency proposes to build a dam.
to Why? Flood control, power, and recreation. Is this the correct
statement of underlying needs? It may be. If it is established that
there are floods, then there may be a condition requiring relief.
That would be the correct definition of an underlying need.
Whether there is also a need for power and recreation requires
further proof. If it can be established that there is a need for
power, then the proposal to build a dam meets two underlying
needs—flood control and power. And for recreation, if there is a
condition requiring relief, building a dam may meet three needs.
But if there is no "need" for power or recreation, the needs may
become "purposes"—goals to be attained while building a dam to
meet the need for flood control.
7. "An agency shall commence preparation of an environmental impact state-
ment as close as possible to the time the agency is developing or is presented with
a proposal... so that preparation can be completed in time for the final state-
ment to be included in any recommendation or report on the proposal." 40 C.F.R.
§ 1502.5 (1987).
8. "(T)he EIS must nevertheless consider such alternatives to the proposed
action as may partially or completely meet the proposal's goal and it must evalu-
ate their comparative merits." Natural Resources Defense Council v. Callaway,
524 »79, 93 (2d Cir. 1975). The case uses the word "goal" rather than "under-
" but the concept is the tame.
3Z4
ENVIRONMENTAL LAW
fVoL 1&371
Thus there is established a structure for preparing EISs: a
proposed action (build a dam), to meet an underlying need (flood
control), while achieving other purposes (power and recreation in
this example).
IV. ALTERNATIVE WAYS TO MEET THE NEED
Nothing better characterizes the NEPA process than the de-
velopment of alternatives. But which alternatives? The proper al-
ternatives in an EIS are alternative ways to meet the underlying
need.*
Take the above example of a proposal to build a dam to meet
the underlying need for flood control. What are other ways to
meet the underlying need? Perhaps an upstream program of lev-
ees, weirs, and vegetation management would also control floods.
Perhaps a number of smaller upstream dams would work. There
may be other ways.
But what if there were also a need for power? Then would
any of these alternatives still work? Probably not. Levees and up-
stream vegetation management are not alternative ways to meet
the underlying need for power. Thus a Federal agency defines the
range of alternatives in an EIS by defining the underlying need.
. When the underlying need is for both flood control and power,
i only a dam will meet that need and the range of alternatives may
become very narrow.
Take the case of City of New York v. United States Depart-
ment of Transportation.19 The Department of Transportation
(DOT) proposed to regulate the highway transport of radioactive
materials. The underlying need to which DOT was responding
9. The "rule of reason" for the range of alternatives is well known. S««, t.g.,
Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Corp. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, 435
U.S. 519, 551 (1978). Thus only "reasonable" alternatives are required. CEQ de-
fines the kinds of alternatives required within the scope of an BIS as the no action
alternative, other reasonable courses of action, and mitigation measures not in the
proposed action. 40 C.F.R. § 1508.25(b) (1987). These rules are entirely consistent
with each other. The "no action alternative" is defined in this article as "the alter-
native of not meeting the need." "Other reasonable causes of action" are other
reasonable ways of meeting the underlying need. "Mitigation measures" are a spe-
cial class of alternatives and can be added to an EIS without conflicting with the
range of alternatives responding to the underlying need.
10. 715 F.2d 732 (2d Cir. 1983), cert, denied, 465 U.S. 1055 (IS
-------
ENVIRONMENTAL DOCUMENTS
375
OJ
was the need for Federal regulation for safe highway routing of
radioactive materials. The City of New York criticized DOT's
rulemaking and urged DOT to consider barging radioactive
materials around the city as an alternative to highway transport.11
Is barging an alternative to highway transport? Yea, of course it
is. But is barging an alternative way to meet the underlying need?
No:
The scope of alternatives to be considered is a function of how nar-
rowly or broadly one views the objective of an agency's proposed
action. In this case, for example, if DOT's objective is to improve
the safety of highway transportation of radioactive materials, rele-
vant alternatives might include a choice of routes, a choice of
equipment, arid a choice of driver qualifications. If DOT is con-
cerned more broadly with all transportation of these materials, it
might consider alternative modes of transportation. If the objective
is viewed still more broadly as reducing the hazards of radiation
exposure, the Department might consider alternative sources of
power that could reduce the generation of spent nuclear fuel."
The court used the word "objective" rather than "underlying
need," but the concept is the same-the range of alternatives is
defined by the statement of underlying need. Barging is not an
alternative to highway safety, although it wouid be an alternative
to highway transport. DOT need not have considered barging ra-
dioactive materials around New York as an alternative in its envi-
ronmental document" because it was responding to the need for
safe highway transport of radioactive materials, not to the need
for transportation of some kind.
There are very few cases making this point. In Natural Re-
sources Defense Council, Inc. v. Morton," the Secretary of the
11. "Throughout the rule-making process, the City of New York was a vocal
critic of DOT's proposals and repeatedly urged DOT to broaden the scope of its
inquiry and to consider barging as an alternate means of transporting large-quan-
tity shipments of radioactive materials around urban centers that lack circumfer-
ential highways." City of New York v. United States Dep't. of Tramp., 715 F.2d at
739.
12. Id. at 743.
13. It is not relevant here that DOT had prepared an Environmental Assess-
ment (EA) rather than an EIS. The court was not construing 40 C.F.R. J 1502.13,
which pertains only to EISs. The point Is the same whether agencies prepare EAs
or EISs.
14. 458 F.2d 827 (D.C. Clr. 1982).
376
ENVIRONMENTAL LAW
[\ -8:371
Interior prepared an EIS prior to issuing Gulf of Mexico oil and
gas leases. The underlying need to which the Secretary was re-
sponding stemmed from the problem of the energy crisis of the
early 1970s. Other ways to meet the need included eliminating oil
import quotas, developing oil shale, tar sands, and geothermal re-
sources, desulfurizing coal, and coal liquefaction and gasifica-
tion." Even though it was beyond the Secretary's jurisdiction to
change the oil import quota or implement the other alternatives,
the court required these alternatives in the Secretary's EIS, not-
ing that the level of detail needed for some kinds of alternatives
might be affected by "the needs to which the underlying proposal
is addressed."1* Once Interior had defined the underlying need as
the need to meet the nation's energy crisis, all reasonable ways to
meet the energy crisis had to go into the EIS. Those that were
less reasonable could perhaps be described in less detail.
In Izaak Walton League of America v. Marsh," an EIS on a
Corps of Engineers' proposed replacement lock and dam was held
adequate even though it did not include a rehabilitation alterna-
tive because that alternative would not meet the underlying need
for expanding the lock and dam, did not include a railroad alter-
native because that alternative would not meet the need for more
safety at the lock and dam, and did not include the alternative of
controlling congestion at the existing lock and dam because that
alternative would not meet the need for expanding the capacity of
the waterways system.1* "It would certainly be a waste of agency
resources to test the efficiency of an alternative which is not only
beyond the agency's power, but also incapable of either fully solv-
ing the problem at hand or fulfilling the mandate of Congress.""
15. Id. at 834, 836-37.
16. Id. at 837-38.
17. 655 F.2d 346 (D.C. Cir.), cert, denied sub. nom. Atchiaon, T. & S.F. Ry. v.
Marsh, 454 U.S. 1092 (1981).
18. Id., 644 F.2d at 372-74.
19. Id. at 374. The court is apparently adding three criteria to the proper
range of alternatives: (1) the alternative must be within the agency's power, (2)
the alternative must be "fully capable of solving the problem at hand," and (3)
the alternative must fulfill the mandate of Congress. Even partial solutions may
be a reasonable alternative. See Natural Resources Defense Council v. Callaway,
524 F.2d 79, 93 (2d Cir. 1975) ("(T|he E(S must nevertheless consider such alter-
natives to the proposed action as may partially or completely meet the proposal's
goal and it must evaluate their comparative merits."). As to being within the
agency's power and fulfilling the mandate of .Congress, EISs must include alterna-
-------
ENVIRONMENTAL DOCUMENTS
377
In Trout Unlimited w. Morton,*' the court upheld the range
of alternatives in an EIS on a proposed dam project. Of the need
for flood control, the alternative of levees was considered. Of the
need for irrigation water, the alternative of groundwater pumping
was considered. "The range of alternatives that must be consid-
ered need not extend beyond those reasonably related to the pur-
poses of the project."11 The court used the term "purposes" of the
project, rather than "underlying needs," but the concept is the
same.
Thus the structure of an EIS continues with the added twist
that it is not alternatives to the proposed action that must be
analyzed in an EIS, but alternative ways to meet the underlying
need. If a particular alternative does not meet the need very well,
or is otherwise not very reasonable, it might be analyzed in less
detail.
V. No ACTION—NOT TO MEET THE NEED
A "no action" alternative is required in EISs.*1 Many EISs
treat the no action alternative literally as "not taking the pro-
posed action." If the proposed action is to build a dam, the no
action alternative may be treated simply as not building a dam.
The impacts of not building a dam are then treated as not flood-
ing farmland, not relocating displaced landowners, not building
access roads, etc.
A more insightful approach would be to treat the no action
alternative as not meeting the need. In our example, there is a
need to control floods. What would happen if the need were not
met? Continued floods! What is the impact of continued floods?
lives outside the mandate of Congress and agency's statutory authority. See Natu-
ral Resources Defense Council v. Morton, 458 F.2d 827, 835 (D.C. Cir. 1972)
("While the Department of Interior does not have the authority to eliminate or
reduce oil import quotas, such action is within the purview of both Congress and
the President, to whom the impact statement goes"). The better rule would be
that none of these criteria are valid reasons to leave an alternative out of an EIS
entirely, but these factors may affect the level of detail to which the alternatives
are analyzed.
20. 509 F.2d 1276 (9th Cir. 1974).
21. Id. at 1286.
22. 40 C.F.R. § 1508.25(b)(2) (1987). CEQ does provide guidance on this in
of its "Forty Most Asked Questions." See Forty Questions, aupro note
4,ai
ENVIRONMENTAL LAW
{Vol 1&371
And what is the impact of the proposed dam? With this analysis,
decision makers, and the public, would have before them the true
difference between building and not building the dam.
One court has acknowledged this approach. In Trout Unlim-
ited v. Morton, above, the Ninth Circuit upheld an EIS which
"considered the alternatives of (1) no development whatsoever
(the alternative of not accomplishing the project's purposes),""
but the court did not elaborate. CEQ has also acknowledged this
approach. '"No action' . . . would mean the proposed activity
would not take place, and the resulting environmental effects
from taking no action would be compared with the effects of per-
mitting the proposed activity or an alternative activity to go for-
ward.'"4 Following CEQ's advice, an agency would analyze the
impacts of not meeting the need rather than simply not taking
the proposed action.
VI. PURPOSES BECOME DECISION FACTORS
A troublesome part of this model is to distinguish "needs"
from "purposes." A handy rule of thumb is that needs have alter-
natives and purposes do not. In other words, agencies develop
reasonable alternative ways to meet needs, but not purposes.
Purposes are those collateral decision factors that help sort
out the alternatives. For example, if an agency presented four al-
ternatives in an EIS—each equal in every respect except that one
was cheapest—and if one of the agency's purposes was to save
money, then the cheapest alternative would be favored by that
decision factor. In our earlier example, the underlying need was
to control floods. Alternatives included levees and vegetation
management. If one of the agency's purposes were to provide rec-
reation, then the alternative that had the best recreation benefit
would be favored by that factor in the decision making process. In
our example, building the dam would probably provide the best
recreation benefits and the proposed action would thus be favored
by this, purpose.
Purposes appear in two places in the decision making pro-
cess: in the "purpose and heeds" section of the EIS" and again in
23. 509 F.2d at 1286.
24. 46 Fed. Reg. 18027, March 23,1981.
25. 40 C.F.R. | 1602.13 (1987).
-------
ENVIRONMENTAL DOCUMENTS
379
the Record of Decision (ROD).1' The CEQ regulations do not say
that purposes appear in a ROD, but decision factors must be
disclosed:
An agency may discuss preferences among alternatives based on
relevant factors including economic and technical considerations
and agency statutory missions. An agency shall identify and discuss
all such- factors including any essential considerations of national
policy which were balanced by the agency in making its decision
and state how those considerations entered into its decision."
The logic for tying "purposes" in an EIS to "decision factors" in
the ROD is threefold. First, the ROD should be based on the rec-
ord before the agency. In many agency proceedings, the EIS is
perhaps the only reronl created prior to the decision, and so the
EIS is the best place if not the only place to put matters that are
relevant to the decision. Second, there may be acute public
awareness of and interest in the pending decision. Disclosure of
all relevant decision factors in the EIS—long before they are dis-
i~J closed in the ROD—serves as public notice and invites comments
to or. decision factors that may affect the public. Third, putting
01 these favors into the EIS paves the way for those who follow to
write the ROD. The eleventh decision making hour, when ROD
writers are hard at work, is not the best time to start listing the
relevant decision making factors.
Thus the structure of an EIS continues with the decision fac-
tors—as they will ultimately be used in the ROD—being dis-
closed in the purpose and need section.
VII. SPECIAL RULES FOR ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENTS (EAs)
EAs must have a statement of underlying need, but need not
have a statement of purposes: "Environmental Assessment . . .
[sjhall include brief discussions of the need for the proposal
. . ."" Why did CEQ leave "purposes" out of EAs? A simple ex-
planation, consistent with the model described above, is that for
EISs, purposes are only relevant at the time of preparing the
ROD. Because EAs are not followed by RODs,'* there is no rea-
26. 40 C.F.R. § 1505.2 (1987).
27. 40 C.F.R. § 1505.2(b) (1987).
28. 40 C.F.R. § 1508.9(b) (1987).
29. CEQ regulations only require RODs In cases where EISs are prepared. 40
360
ENVIRONMENTAL LAW
(Voi.
son to put purposes into EAs. In other words, purposes are rele-
vant at the time of decision as decision factors. Decision factors
must be disclosed in RODs. RODs are not required in cases where
EISs are not prepared. Thus the reason purposes are required in
EISs ia simply not present when an EA is prepared.
Agencies may choose to prepare RODs following EAs, and
thus should put purposes into EAs as well as EISs. In any event,
at the time of decision, when decision makers are balancing all
relevant factors, the record should disclose somewhere what deci-
sion factors—underlying purposes—the agency was responding to.
VIII. A CHECKLIST FOR THE PURPOSE AND NEED STATEMENT
The statement of proposed action and underlying need can
never be the same. "We propose to build a dam because we need
a dam" is not a proper statement of underlying need; it is just a
repetition of the proposal, and in any event it is hot analytic.
The reasonable alternatives to be presented in an EIS are
the reasonable ways to meet the underlying need. Alternatives
that do not meet the need can in some cases be eliminated from
study and in other cases be analyzed in less detail. The proper
question is not "What alternatives ate there to this proposal,"
but "What alternatives are there to meet this underlying need."
Needs are distinguished from purposes by the fact that
needs have alternative solutions, but purposes do not. For exam-
ple, saving money is nearly always an agency objective. But agen-
cies do not usually engage in decision making processes for the
sole purpose of saving money. Normally agencies apply the factor
of cost savings when deciding between alternative ways to meet
an underlying need.
Purposes are goals to be attained while meeting the under-
lying need, and become decision factors at the time of making
the decision. Decision factors conveniently fall into three catego-
ries: economic, technical, and environmental. The choice between
alternatives often requires a balance between these factors.
"No action" means not to meet the need. There is very little
C.F.R. S 1505.2 (1987) ("At the time of its decision . . . each agency shall prepare
* concise public record of decision"). This section only applies to cases wher: an
BIS is prepared.
-------
19881
ENVIRONMENTAL DOCUMENTS
381
analysis in defining the no action alternative simply as not to take
action. A better perspective comes from analyzing the alternative
of not meeting the need.
Agencies are free to define the underlying need to which
they are responding, subject to judicial review under an as-yet-
undefined, standard. The law in this area has not yet developed.
Agencies should expect, however, not to define arbitrarily or ca-
priciously an underlying need, and to show a rational connection
between proposed action, other alternative courses of action, and
the underlying need.
OJ
is)
-------
TECHNIQUES FOR COMMUNICATING WITH THE PUBLIC
Public Involvement Strategy. Public involvement in the EA
process, other than being required by law, is also a good
management practice. It helps the proponent understand the
expectations and concerns of the interested and affected publics,
identify the potential for controversy, and obtain additional
information relevant to the proposed activity. It also enhances the
proponent's credibility and lessens the chances for public
grievances, appeals, litigation, and media attacks. The proponent
must encourage and facilitate public involvement by providing
public notice of hearings, meetings, and availability of EA
documents. Moreover, the public must be given an opportunity to
comment on EA documents. In turn, the proponent must remain
flexible and ready to respond to public comments and suggested
alternatives and issues related to the proposed activity.
Development of a public involvement strategy should start as soon
as a decision is reached on the level of EA. The proponent should
consider:
Who might be interested or affected by the proposed activity?
Who might have information or expertise needed for the EA?
What information is needed from each person, government
agency, and NGO on the list?
What is the most effective way of obtaining the information?
There are a number of techniques for communicating with the
public (Table 2-1); however, each letter, notice, or meeting must
be planned to suit the specific proposed activity.
1.3.3-1
-------
Table 2-1. Techniques for communicating with the public. Adapted from Bishop, 1973.
(Source: Federal Environmental Assessment 'Review Office (FEARO). 1986. Initial
Assessment Guide. Federal Environmental Assessment Review Office, Ottawa K1A OH3)
Communication
Characteristics
Public Information and
Participation Objectives
•a
22
•— w
•ss
*•£
**-
Q4J
O
•— 10
ei±>
> c
o o
— 10
2
2
i
2
1
1
1
1
2
I
1
2
3
1
3
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
4> 4J
i— in
•a o>
c u
ID O
= 2
O —
JJ
o
i?£
•— u
38.
< to
1
1
2
I
2
3
2
3
2
3
1
1
1
3
1
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
Degree of 2-way
Conmuni cation
1
2
3
2
2
3
1
3
1
3
2
2
1
2
1
1
3
3
3
3
3
3
1
Public Participation/Communication Techniques
Public Hearings
Public Meetings
Informal Small Croup Meetings
General Public Information Meetings
Presentations to Community Organization
Information Coordination Seminars
Operating Field Offices
Local Planning Visits
Information Brochures and Pamphlets
Field Trips and Site Visits
Public Displays
Model Demonstration Projects
Material for Mass Media
Response to Public Inquiries
Press Releases Inviting Comments
Letter Requests for Comments
Workshops
Advisory Committees
Task Forces
Employment of Community Residents
Community Interest Advocates
Ombudsman or Representative
Public Review of Initial Assessment
Decision Document
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Identify Problems/ jj
Values 1
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Gel Ideas/Solve 1
Problems ||
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Feedback
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Eval uate
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Resolve Conflict/ II
Consensus ||
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
x low, 2 ss medium, 3 — high
X = Capability
1.3.3-2
-------
Identification of Issues
Issues are unresolved concerns or questions, often about the environmental
consequences of proposed activities, that have societal significance. They are
usually raised during scoping and document review by interested or affected
individuals, groups, organizations or agencies that value a certain resource. The
identification of issues early in the planning process helps to limit the scope of
EA to potentially significant impacts, relevant concerns, and workable, acceptable
solutions to problems that are useful to the decisionmaker and the project planner.
To be meaningful and effective, EA must be relevant to regulatory needs and
public concerns as well as scientifically valid.
Although issues are mostly project-specific, public concerns with
environmental matters generally fit into the following categories (FEARO 1986,
Beanlands 1988):
• impacts on human health and safety;
• threats to livelihood (erg., loss of important commercial species or
commercially available production; concern for habitat losses
which represent a foreclosure on future production);
• life-style modifications (e.g., loss of home or changes in life style
due to visitors or new residents with different values);
• threats to valued resources (e.g. recreational, aesthetic,
educational, scientific and historic features, and the preservation
and conservation of biological populations, communities, and
natural areas);
• land-use conflicts (especially when available land is limited and the
proposed uses are mutually exclusive); and
• supply and demand (i.e., when there are perceived imbalances
between supply and demand of resources and their development
within a local, regional or national context).
1.3.4-1
*For purposes of this document, the term Environmental Assessment (EA) will refer to the
Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) process.
-------
NEEDS
• Clear purpose and need statements, project descriptions, tentative
alternatives, and known potential environmental impacts and
mitigation measures, so that the publics and agencies understand the
proposed action and can participate in scoping and document review
-in a meaningful way.
• Distribution of project information to interested/affected publics
and agencies.
• Public and agency participation in scoping meetings.
• Identification early in the EA process of the valued environmental
components so that the assessment is focused on the important
issues and the assessment endpoints necessary for impact analysis
can be determined.
TOOLS
• The use of checklists can help the proponent and the EA team
identify potential impacts and issues associated with a proposed
activity,
• Public involvement is necessary TO determine the social relevance
of environmental issues (i.e., the value placed on the change by
different affected groups). If a component has little public value,
it may not warrant extensive effort in the assessment. However,
there can also be issues of interest to other governmental agencies
or issues of scientific and ecological/environmental importance that
must be resolved but which may not elicit public interest.
• In addition to techniques for communicating with the public listed
hi Table 2-1, the proponent should solicit input from appropriate
professionals and other government agencies. Surveys,
questionnaires, and brainstorming sessions can provide
opportunities for identification of issues.
« Use of the following questions will help to focus the issues and
impacts:
Who is interested in the issue and what are the chief
concerns?
- What is the threshold of concern (i.e., the point at which
an impact becomes unacceptable)?
• If possible, determine the threshold of concern (i.e., a maximum
or minimum number or other value for an environmental impact
or resource use which, if exceeded, causes it to take on new
importance) in terms of the following criteria:
magnitude [the probable severity of each potential impact
(e.g., degree, extent, or scale)];
1.3.4-2
-------
prevalence (relation to cumulative impacts);
duration and frequency (long-term, short-term, recovery
during inactive periods);
risks (probability of environmental effects); and
precedent (does the project create a precedent that is likely
to be duplicated or extended elsewhere?).
ISSUES
• Lack of public understanding of the proposed action and its
potential environmental impacts.
• Care should be taken that issues identified during scoping are not:
too broad to be useful for analytical purposes (e.g., cultural
impacts - what does this mean? What are the impacts that
should be examined?);
causes rather than issues (e.g., oil and gas development is
a cause that fails to go beyond the obvious to the specific
effects that are of concern); and
outside of agency control (e.g., mandated by legislation).
• Once issues are identified, the proponent must refine broad general
topics and specify which issues need analysis and evaluation,
eliminate from detailed study those issues that are not significant,
and identify those issues that have been covered by prior
environmental review.
• Often an issue is not clearly stated and it is difficult to determine
the underlying concern or question. As a result the document may
not address a relevant issue and the adequacy of the document is
open to challenge.
• Characterization and analysis of issues is often difficult because
baseline data are lacking and the degree of uncertainty is high.
LINKAGES
Early identification of important issues during initiation and scoping gives
direction to EA and allows more focused efforts. However, the potential exists
for new or additional information to become available throughout the EA process
(i.e., assessment, decisionmaking. and post-decision analysis): thus, new issues
may need to be addressed at any time.
1.3.4-3
-------
REFERENCES
Bardwell, L. V. 1991. Problem-framing: a perspective on environmental
problem-solving. Environmental Management 15:603-617.
Beanlands, G. 1988. Scoping methods and baseline studies in EIA. In:
Environmental Impact Assessment: Theory and Practice
(ed. P. Wathern). Unwin Hyman, Boston 332 pp.
FEARO (Federal Environmental Assessment and Review Process). 1986. Initial
Assessment Guide. Federal Environmental Assessment Review Office,
Ottowa, Canada. 36pp.
1.3.4-4
-------
Generation of Alternatives
United States federal regulations require analysis of reasonable alternatives
to a proposed action, including the option of not proceeding with any action at all
(the "no action" alternative) (Part D). This is considered the heart of EA because
it organizes and clarifies choices available to the decisionmaker and presents the
consequences of each choice. The description of the no action alternative
provides a baseline of information on the present and future environment for
comparing and contrasting the impacts of the proposed action among other
alternatives (see Chapter 4.1 for baseline information).
Preliminary alternatives are generated at the initiation stage by the
proponent. These are included in the environmental information packet that is
prepared for distribution at scoping meetings and elsewhere. Additional
alternatives may be generated by the public, NGOs and other governmental
agencies during scoping and at other stages of the EA process (e.g., document
review). Alternatives can be different ways of accomplishing the purpose and
need (i.e., alternatives Jo. a project such as conservation, recycling, new or
different technologies) or different ways of accomplishing the proposed action
(i.e., alternatives within a project such as options for siting, scaling, phasing,
timing of construction and operation; mitigation, use of resources, management
of residuals).
NEEDS
• A clear description of the purpose and need for the proposed
action in order to identify and bound reasonable alternatives
(Attachment 2.A).
• A description of the proposed action, its potential impacts, and any
known related issues.
• Relationship of the proposed action to other known or reasonably
foreseeable actions (projects, programs, policies) including possible
cumulative effects.
• Any policy, programmatic, legal, regulatory or other constraint to
the proposed action.
• A list of the alternatives considered during the preparation of the
proposal.
1.3.5-1
*For purposes of this document, the term Environmental Assessment (EA) will refer to the
Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) process.
-------
TOOLS
• A no action alternative as a benchmark against which to compare
and contrast the anticipated effects of the proposed action among
other alternatives.
• Intra-agency consultation to generate preliminary alternatives.
• Scoping meetings and interagency consultation to generate other
alternatives.
• A screening procedure to reduce alternatives to a reasonable
number that are practical, feasible and representative of the
complete array of viable alternatives.
ISSUES
• Generation of preliminary alternatives should occur as soon as the
purpose and need are established so that planning to select the
proposed action does not bias the choice of alternatives.
• Reasonable alternatives include those that are practical or feasible
from the technical and economic standpoint and using common
sense, rather than simply desirable from the standpoint of the
proponent.
• Reasonable alternatives are not limited to the jurisdiction of the
proponent.
• The alternatives should offer substantive choices.
• All reasonable alternatives, including the preferred alternative,
should be given equal treatment in EA documentation.
Identification of a preferred alternative provides a focal point for
commentary by other organizations and the public. Moreover, it
is required by U.S. federal regulations (Part D).
LINKAGES
The generation of preliminary alternatives starts during the initiation stage
of a proposed action. Additional alternatives are generated during scoping and
may even be identified during the analysis and decisionmaking stages of EA. In
general, after scoping there is agreement on the alternatives to be evaluated in the
EA document. Documentation is prepared for those alternatives eliminated from
detailed study, .including the reasons for their elimination.
1.3.5-2
-------
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT CHECKLISTS
A Listing and Example of the World Bank Checklists for Projects with
Potentially Significant Environmental Impacts. (Source: The World Bank.
1991. Environmental Assessment Sourcebook, Volume II)
Model EIS Scoping Checklist. (Source: New York State Department of
Environmental Conservation. 1982. State Environmental Quality Review
Handbook)
Checklist of Potential Environmental Impacts of a Transportation Project.
(Source: A. D. Little, Inc. 1971. Transportation and Environment:
Synthesis for Action: Impact of the National Environmental Policy Act of
1969 on the Department of Transportation, Vol. I-ffl, prepared for the Office
of the Secretary, Department of Transportation)
1.3.6-1 .
*For purposes of this document, the term Environmental Assessment (EA) will refer to the
Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) process.
-------
1.3.6-2
-------
A Listing and Example of the World Bank Checklists for Projects with Potentially
Significant Environmental Impacts. (Source: The World Bank. 1991. Environmental
Assessment Sourcebook, Volumes II and III)
VOLUME H
Table
Table
8.1
8.2
8.3
8.4
8.5
8.6
8.7
8.8
8.9
9.1
9.2
9.3
9.4
9.5
9.6
9.7
9.8
Agroindustry
Dams and Reservoirs
Fisheries
Flood Protection
Natural Forest Management
Plantation Development/Reforestation
Irrigation and Drainage
Livestock and Rangelands Management
Rural Roads
Analytical Framework for Urban Environmental Problems
Roads and Highways
Inland Navigation
Port and Harbor Faculties
Large-Scale Housing Projects
Solid Waste Collection and Disposal Systems
Tourism Development
Wastewater Collection, Treatment, Reuse, and Disposal System
VOLUME m
Table 10.1 Industrial Hazard Management
10.2 Electric Power Transmission Systems
10.3 Oil and Gas Pipelines
10.4 Checklist - Offshore Oil and Gas Development
10.5 Oil and Gas Development — Offshore
10.6 Checklist — Onshore Oil and Gas Development
10.7 Oil and Gas Development — Onshore
10.8 Hydroelectric Projects
10.9 Thermoelectric Projects
10.10 Cement
10.11 Chemical and Petrochemical
10.12 Fertilizer
10.13 Food Processing
10.14 Iron and Steel Manufacturing
10.15 Nonferrous Metals
10.16 Petroleum Refining
10.17 Pulp, Paper, and Timber Processing
10.18 Mining and Mineral Processes
1O £. ^
.3.OO
-------
Table 9.8. Wastewater Collection, Treatment, Reuse, and Disposal Systems.
(Source: The World Bank. 1991. Environmental Assessment Sourcebook, Volume II)
Potential Negatne Impacts
Direct
1, Disturbance of stream channels, aquatic pUnt and animal
habitat, and pawning and nursery areas during
conftructioo.
2. Alterations in watenhed hydrologic balance when
wastewater is exported by collection in large upstream areas
and discharge downstream.
3 . Degradation of neighborhoods or receiving water quality
from sewer overflows, treatment works bypasses, or
treatment process failure.
4 . Degradation of receiving water quality despite normal
system operation.
5. Public health hazards in vicinity of discharges or reuse sites
during normal operation of system.
6 . Contamination at land application sites:
soil and crops by toxic substances and pathogens
groundwaterby toxic substances and nitrogen
7. Failure to achieve desired beneficial uses of receiving waters
despite normal system operation.
Mitigating Measures
1 . • Do not route sewer lines in stream channels.
• Require erosion/sedimentation controls during
construction.
2. • Consider sub-regional arid small community systems
in water-short areas.
• Take full advantage of opportunities for wastewater
reclamation/reuse, especially in water-short areas.
3. • Phase construction of collector systems and treatment
works to avoid raw wastewater discharges.
• Select appropriate technology.
• Design for reliability, euse of maintenance.
• Implement management and training
recommendations, monitoring program, and industrial
waste pretreatment program (see text for guidelines).
4. • Site and design treatment works and disposal or reuse
systems on the basis of adequate data on the
characteristics of the wastewater and the assimilative
capacity of the receiving water body.
• Use mathematical models for siting surface water
discharges and determining required level of
treatment, and for siting and designing ocean outfalls.
• Take full advantage of appropriate land application
alternatives, especially in water-short areas.
• Implement monitoring program and industrial waste
pre-treatmem program (see text for guidelines).
5. • Select appropriate technology.
• Ensure preapplication treatment and operating
guideline! for land application and other water reuse
systems are adequate to safeguard health of humans
and livestock.
• Restrict access to wastewater or sludge disposal sites
where health hazards nre unavoidable.
6. • Site and design treatment works and disposal or reuse
systems on the basis of adequate data on the
characteristics of the wastewater and land application
site.
• Implement monitoring program and effective industrial
waste pretreatment program (see text for guidelines).
• Ensure preapplication treatment and operating
guidelines for land application and other wastewater
reuse systems are adequate.
7. • Establish realistic use objective and select water
quality criteria consistent with desired uses.
• Establish system performance standards by modeling
or other meant which will result in meeting criteria.
1.3.6-4
-------
Table 9.8. Wastewater Collection, Treatment, Reuse, and Disposal Systems (continued)
Potential Negative Impacts
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
13.
14.
15.
16.
17.
18.
Odors and noise from treatment proeeu or sludge diipoul
operations.
Emissions of volatile organic compounds from treatment
proeeu.
Soil, crop or groundwater contamination and disease vector
breeding or feeding at sludge storage, reuse or disposal
sites.
Worker accidents during construction and operation,
especially in deep trenching operations.
Worker accidents caused by gas accumulation in sewers and
other confined spaces or by hazardous materials discharged
into sewers.
Serious public and worker health hazard from chlorine
accidents.
Nuisances and public health hazard from sewer overflows
and backups.
Failure to achieve public health improvement in serviced
area.
Dislocation of residents by plant siting.
Perceived or actual nuisances and adverse aesthetic impacts
in neighborhood of treatment works.
Accidental destruction of archaeological sites during
excavation.
Mitigating Measures
8. • Site treatment works only near compatible land uses.
• Select appropriate technology.
• Include odor control and low-noise equipment hi
design.
• Implement management and training recommendations
(see text).
9. • Establish effective industrial waste pretreatment
program (see text for guidelines).
10. • Incorporate sludge management in system feasibility
studies, technology selection, design, staffing,
training, budgeting and startup plan.
• Implement effective industrial waste pretreatment
program (see text for guidelines).
• Ensure preapplication treatment and operating
guidelines for land application and other reuse or
disposal systems are adequate to safeguard health of
humans and livestock.
• Inspect for compliance with operating guidelines.
11. Enforce adherence to safety procedures.
12. • Emphasize safety education and training for system
•sun*.
• Implement effective industrial waste pretreatment
program (see text for guidelines).
• Provide appropriate safety equipment and monitoring
instruments.
• Enforce adherence to safety procedures.
13. * Incorporate safety provisions in design, operating
procedures, and training.
• Prepare contingency plan for accident response.
14. • Routinely inspect sewers for illegal connections and
obstructions.
** Clean sewers as necessary.
• Provide monitoring system with alarms for pump
station failure.
• Provide alternate power supply at critical pump
stations.
• Educate public to prevent disposal of solid waste in
sewers.
IS . Conduct sanitation and hygiene education program.
16. Assist with resettlement (see "Involuntary Resettlement*
aection).
17. Incorporate neighborhood improvements and useful public
facilities in project.
1 8 . Include notification and protection procedures for cultural
properties in construction contract documents (see "Cultural
Property" section).
1.3.6-5
-------
Table 9.8. "Wastewater Collection, Treatment, Reuse, and Disposal Systems (continued)
Potential Negative Impacts
Indirect
19. Unplanned development induced or facilitated by
infrastructure.
20. Regional solid waste management problems exacerbated by
sludge.
21. Lots of fisheries productivity.
22. Reduction of tourist or recreational activity.
Mitigating Measures
19. • Coordinate installation of sewerage with land use
planning.
• Strengthen land use control regulations and
institutions .
• Integrate planning for infrastructure in urban
development projects.
20. • Incorporate sludge, excreta and septage in regional
solid waste management planning and in wastewater
system feasibility studies and technology selection.
• Implement industrial waste pretreatment program.
21. • Evaluate importance of receiving water in local and
regional fisheries.
• Implement mitigating measure for direct impacts 3, 4
and?.
22. * Give special attention to real or perceived nuisances
and aesthetic impacts in selecting site and technology.
• Implement mitigating measures for direct impacts 3,
4, 5, 7, 8 and 14.
1.3.6-6
-------
Source: New York State Department or tnviromnentai
State Environmental Quality Review Handbook.
Introduction
The following checklist of topics is intended
as a starting point for developing a detailed scope
for a project-specific Draft Environmental Impact
Statement. Typically, no one project will require a
discussion of all the topic areas contained in this
document. Through the scoping process, this list of
topics should be refined to reflect issues unique to
the proposed project. Topic areas may be deleted,
added, or elaborated upon, to arrive at the final
scoping document.
The purpose of the checklist format is to
identify the basic topic areas for the Draft EIS. This
is accomplished by reviewing the list and placing a
check in the box located to the left of those topics
which should be discussed. The model scoping
checklist can also be used as a worksheet, including
comments, suggestions and identification of the
particular example(s) that are relevant to a detailed
discussion of the topic or issue that has been check-
ed. Conversely, those topics which are not checked,
are issues not associated with the project, and may
be eliminated from discussion in the Draft EIS.
Minimum requirements for any Draft EIS are
already checked for convenience.
The next step is to expand the list to include
or elaborate on those topics unique to the proposed
project. A blank sheet is included at the end of the
checklist for such additional information.
The scoping process involves several steps in
addition to compiling a list of topics. Scoping also
includes discussions on the quantity and quality of
information required and the methods for obtaining
that data.
MOTE: This checklist was designed to be
used in conjunction with the section on scoping con-
tained in the SEQ.R Guideline-Draft and Final ElS's.
It is also important to emphasize that this checklist
should serve only as a model to assist in the scoping
of a Draft EIS. It should not be used as a substitute
for actively scoping a Draft EIS for a specific pro-
ject.
I. Cover Sheet
All EIS's (Draft or Final) shall begin with a cover
sheet that indicates:
A. Whether it is a draft or final statement
B. Name or other descriptive title of the project
C. Location (county and town, village or city) of
the project
D. Name and address of the lead agency which
required preparation of the statement and
the name and telephone number of a person
at the agency to be contacted for further in-
formation
E. Name and address of the preparers of any
portion of the statement and a contact name
and telephone number
F. Date of acceptance of the Draft EIS
G. In the case of a Draft EIS, the deadline date
by which comments are due should be in-
dicated
II. Table of Contents and Summary
A table of contents and a brief summary are re-
quired for Draft and Final EIS's exceeding 10 pages
in length. However, one should include these
features in any size EIS to provide the review agency
with easy reference to EIS topics.
The summary should include:
A. Brief description of the action
B. Significant, beneficial and adverse impacts,
(issues of controversy must be specified)
C. Mitigation measures proposed
D. Alternatives considered
E. Matters to be decided (permits, approvals,
funding)
III. Description of the Proposed Action
Place a check in the box to the left of those
topics to be included in the draft EIS.
n A. PROJECT PURPOSE AND NEED
1. Background and history
2. Public need for the project, and
municipality objectives based on adopted
community development plans
3. Objectives of the project sponsor
1.3.6-7
-------
D B. LOCATION
1. Establish geographic boundaries of the
project (use of regional and local scale
maps is recommended)
2. Description of access to site
3. Description of existing zoning of propos-
ed site '
4. Other:
13 C. DESIGN AND LAYOUT
1. Total site area
a.) proposed impervious surface area
(roofs, parking lots, roads)
b.) amount of land to be cleared
c.)open space
2. Structures
a.) gross leaseable area (GLA), if ap-
plicable
b.) layout of buildings (attached, enclos-
ed, separate)
c.) site plans and profile views
3. Parking
a.) pavement area
b.) number of spaces and layout
4. Other:
13 D. CONSTRUCTION AND OPERATION
1. Construction
a.) total construction period anticipated
b.) schedule of construction
c.) future potential development, on site
or on adjoining properties
d.) other:
2. Operation
a.) type of operation
b.) schedule of operation
c.) other:
D E. CLOSURE AND POST CLOSURE PLANS
(for projects of planned limited life such as
landfills)
D F. APPROVALS
1. Required changes or variances to the zon-
ing regulations
2. Other permit approval or funding re-
quirements
IV. Environmental Setting
Place a check in the box to the left of those
topics to be included in the Draft E1S.
Natural Resources
D A. GEOLOGY
LJ 1. Subsurface
a.) composition and thickness of
subsurface material
examples:
—depth to, and nature of, bed-
rock formations and imperme-
able layers
—occurrence of an extractive
mineral resource
—usefulness as construction
malarial
b.) earthquake potential
D 2. Surface
a.) list of soil types
b.) discussion of soil characteristics
examples:
—physical properties (indication
of soils hydrological (infiltra-
tion) capabilities)
—engineering properties (soil
bearing capacity)
c.) distribution of soil types at pro-
ject site
d.) suitability for use
examples:
—agriculture
—recreation
—const ruction
—mining
e.) other:
O 3. Topography
a.) description of topography at pro-
ject site
examples:
—slopes
—prominent or unique features
b.) description of topography of sur-
rounding area
D B. WATER RESOURCES
n 1. Groundwater
a.) location and description of
aquifers and recharge areas
examples:
—depth to water table
—seasonal variation
—quality
—quantity
—flow
1.3.6-8
-------
Human Resources .
D A. TRANSPORTATION
D 1. Transportation services
a.) description of the size, capacity
and condition of services
examples:
—roads, canals, railroads,
bridges
—parking facilities
—traffic control
b.) description of current level of use
of services
examples:
—a.m. and p.m. peak hour traffic
flow
—vehicle mix
—sources of existing traffic
volume
O 2. Public transportation
a.) description of the current
availability of service
b.) description of present level of
use
LJ 3. Pedestrian environment
D 4. Other:
D B. LAND USE AND ZONING
LJ 1. Existing land use and zoning
a.) description of the existing land
use of the project site and the
surrounding area
• examples:
—commercial
—residential
—agricultural
—business
—retail
—industrial
—vacant
b.) description of the existing zoning
of site and surrounding area
CH 2. Land use plans
a.) description of any land use plans
or master plans which include
project site and surrounding area
b.) discussion of future development
trends or pressures
D 3. Other:
D C COMMUNITY SERVICES (for this section in-
ciude a list of existing facilities and a discus-
sion of existing levels of usage and pro-
jected future needs)
LJ 1. Educational facilities
D 2. Police protection
L"H 3. Fire protection
D 4. Health care facilities
D 5. Social services
D 6. Recreational facilities
D 7. Utilities
D 8. Other:
D D. DEMOGRAPHY
D 1. Population characteristics
a.) discussion of the existing popula-
tion parameters
examples:
—distribution
—density
—household size and composi-
tion
b.) discussion of projections for
population growth
O 2. Other: Gender, age, ethnic composition
Gender, age, ethnic
D E. CULTURAL RESOURCES
D 1. Visual resources
a.) description of the physical
character of the community
example:
—urban vs. rural
b.) description of natural areas of
significant scenic value
c.) identification of structures of
significant architectural design
D 2. Historic and archaeological
resources
a.) location and description of
historic areas or structures listed
on State or National Register or
designated by the community
b.) identification of sites having
potential significant ar-
chaeological value
1.3.6-9
-------
b.) identification of present uses and
level of use of groundwater
examples:
—location of existing wells
—public/private water supply
—industrial uses
—agricultural uses
D 2. Surface water
a.) location and description of sur-
face waters located on project
site or those that may be in-
fluenced by the project-
examples:
—seasonal variation
—quality
—classification according to
New York State Department of
Health
b.) identification of uses and level of
use of all surface waters
examples:
—public/private water supply
—industrial uses
—agricultural uses
—recreation
c.) description of existing drainage
areas, patterns and channels
d.) discussion of potential for
flooding, siltation, erosion and
eutrophication of water sources
U C AIR RESOURCES
D 1. Climate
a.) discussion of seasonal variations
and extremes
examples:
—temperature
—humidity
—precipitation
—wind
D 2. Air quality
a.) description of existing air quality
levels
examples:
—list the National and State Air
Quality Standards for the pro-
ject area and the compliance
status for each standard
b.) identification of existing sources
or pollutants-fixed or mobile
c.) identification of any sensitive
receptors in project area
examples:
—hospitals, schools, nursing
homes, parks
d.) description of existing monitor-
ing program (if applicable)
D D. TERRESTRIAL AND AQC1AT1C ECOLOGY
D 1. Vegetation
a.) list vegetation types on the pro-
ject site and within the surround-
ing area
b.) discussion of site vegetation
characteristics
examples:
—species present and abundance
—age
—size
—distribution
—dominance
" ~~ —community types
—unique, rare and endangered
species
—value as habitat for wildlife
—productivity
D 2. Fish and Wildlife
a.) list of fish and wildlife species on
the project site and within sur-
rounding area, including
migratory and resident species
b.) discussion of fish and wildlife
population characteristics
examples:
—species present and abundance
—distribution
—dominance
—unique, rare and endangered
species
—productivity
D 3. Wetlands
a.) list wetland areas within or con-
tiguous to the project site
b.) discuss wetland characteristics
examples:
—acreage
—vegetative cover
'~—classification
--benefits of wetland such 3=
flood and erosion contr
recreation
1.3.6-10
' , I, I!,,,:1" ,
-------
D 3. Noise
a.) identification of existing level of
noise in the community
b. identification of major sources of
noise
examples:
—airports
—major highways
— industrial/commercial facili-
ties
D 4. Other:
V. Significant Environmental Impacts
identify those aspects of the environmental set-
ting in Section IV that may be adversely or
beneficially affected by the proposed action and re-
quire discussion.
VI. Mitigation Measures to Minimize Environmen-
tal. Impact
Describe measures to reduce or avoid potential
adverse impacts identified in Section V. The follow-
ing is a brief listing of typical measures used for
some of the major areas of impact.
Natural Resources
D A. GEOLOGY
1. Subsurface
a.) use excavated material for land
reclamation
b.)use facility wastes (ash, sludge)
for land reclamation
c.) other:
2. Surface
a.) use topsoil stockpiled during
construction for restoration and
landscaping
b.) minimize disturbance of non-
construction sites
c.) design and implement soil ero-
sion control plan
d.) other:
3. Topography
a.) avoid construction on areas of
steep slope
b.) design adequate soil erosion
devices to protect areas of steep
. slope
c.) other:
D B. WATER RESOURCES
1. Groundwater
a.) design adequate system of treat-
ment for stormwater runoff prior
to recharge of groundwater
b.) maintain permeable areas on the
site
c.) institute a program for monitor-
ing water quality in adjacent
wells
d.) other:
2. Surface water
a.) ensure use of soil erosion control
techniques during construction
and operation to avoid siltation
examples:
—hay bales
—temporary restoration of
vegetation to disturbed areas
—landscaping
b.) design adequate stormwater con-
trol system
c.) restrict use of salt or sand for
road and parking area snow
removal
d.) avoid direct discharges to surface
water resources
e.) other:
D C. AIR RESOURCES
1. Air quality.
a.) assure proper construction prac-
tices
examples:
—fugitive dust control
—proper operation and
maintenance of construction
equipment
b.) design traffic improvements to
reduce congestion and vehicle
delay
c.) install and ensure the proper
operation of emission control
devices
d.) initiate a program for monitoring
of air quality
e.) other:
1.3.6-11
-------
D D. TERRESTRIAL AMD AQUATIC ECOLOGY
1. Vegetation
a.) restrict clearing to only those
areas necessary
b.) preserve part of site as a natural
area
c.) after construction, landscape site
with naturally occurring vegeta-
tion
d.) purchase open space at another
location and dedicate to local
government or conservation
organization
e.) other:
2. Fish and Wildlife
a.) provide adequate habitat (shelter
and food) for remaining wildlife
species
b.) schedule construction to avoid
sensitive periods of fish and
wildlife life cycles
c.) other:
Human Resources
D A. TRANSPORTATION
1. Transportation services
a.) design adequate and safe access
to project site to handle pro-
jected traffic flow
b.) install adequate traffic control
devices
c.) optimize use of parking areas
d.) encourage car pooling and opera-
tion of facility during non-peak
traffic times
e.) design special routing and
restricted hours for delivery truck
traffic
f.) other
2. Public transportation
a.) adjust public transportation
routes and schedules to service
the facility
b.) encourage use of public transpor-
tation by using incentive pro-
grams for employees or by sell-
ing tickets in facility
c.) other:
D
D
D
B. LAND USE AND ZONING
1. Existing land use and zoning
a.) design project to comply with ex-
isting land use plans
b.) design functional and visually ap-
pealing facility to set standard
and precedent for future
surrounding land use
c.) other:
C COMMUNITY SERVICES
1. Police protection
a.) minimize local police protection
responsibilities by providing
private security force
b.) provide security systems, alarms
for facility
c.) provide equipment, funds or ser-
vices directly to the community
d.) other.
2. Fire protection
- a.) use construction materials that
minimize fire hazards
b.) incorporate sprinkler and alarm
systems into building design
c.) provide equipment, funds or ser-
vices directly to the community
d.) other:
3. Utilities
a.) install utility services
underground
b.) incorporate water saving fixtures
into facility design
c.) incorporate energy-saving
measures into facility design
d.) other:
D" CULTURAL RESOURCES
,1. Visual resources
a.) design exterior of structure to
physically blend with existing
surroundings
b.) minimize- visual impact through
thoughtful and innovative design
of lighting and signs (consider:
height, size, intensity, glare and
hours of lighting operation)
c.) design landscaping to be visually
pleasing and to serve as a buffer
betv/een surrounding land uses,
parking areas, operational equip-
ment and facilities
d.) other:
1.3.6-12
1 V.
-------
2. Historic and archaeologic resources
a.)allow historical and ar-
chaeological officials access to
the project site during excavation
b.) devote space within project site
to a display of historical and ar-
chaeological artifacts of local in-
terest
c.) preserve architecturally signifi-
cant structures and make a
photographic and statistical
record of those that must be
destroyed
d.) other:
3. Noise
a.) schedule construction/operation
to occur during "normal
business" hours minimizing
noise impact during sensitive
times (early morning, night)
b.) assure adherence to construction
noise standards
c.) design berms and landscaping to
block and absorb noise
d.) other:
VII. Adverse Environmental Effects that Cannot
be Avoided if the Project is Implemented
Identify those adverse environmental effects in
Section V that can be expected to occur regardless
of the mitigation measures considered in Section
VI.
VIII. Alternatives
This section contains categories of alternatives
with examples. Discussion of each alternative
should be at a level sufficient to permit a com-
parative assessment of costs, benefits and en-
vironmental risks for each alternative. It is not ac-
ceptable to make simple assertions that a particular
alternative is or is not feasible. Identify those
categories of alternatives which should be included
in the E1S by placing a check in the box located to
the left of the topic.
D A. ALTERNATIVE DESIGN AND
TECHNOLOGIES
1. Site layout
a.) density and location of structures
b.) location of access routes, park-
ing and utility routes
2. Orientation
a.) compatibility with slope and
drainage patterns
b.)site size and setback re-
quirements
3. Technology
a.) pollution control equipment
b.)innovative vs. proven
technologies
4. Mix of activities
a.) addition of businesses which
would affect the operational
nature of the facility
D B. ALTERNATIVE SITES
~~ 1. Limiting factors
a.) availability of land
b.) suitability of alternate site to ac-
comodate design requirements
c.) availability of utilities
d.) suitable market area
e.) compatibility with local zoning
and master plan
f.) compatibility with regional ob-
jectives
g.) accessibility of site to transporta-
tion routes and the service
population
D C. ALTERNATIVE SIZE
1. Increase or decrease project size to
minimize possible impacts
2. Increase or decrease project size to
correspond to market and com-
munity needs
D D. ALTERNATIVE CONSTRUCTION/OPERA- '
TION SCHEDULING
1. Commence construction at a dif-
ferent time
2. Phase construction/operation
3. Restrict construction/operation
work schedule
1.3.6-13
-------
D E. ALTERNATIVE LAND USE
1. Suitability of site for other uses
a.) other types of commercial uses
b.) other types of industry
c.) different types of housing
d.) other:
2. Public vs. private use
D F. NO ACTION
1. Impacts of no action
a.) effect on public need
b.) effect on private developers'need
c.) beneficial or adverse en-
vironmental impacts
D G. OTHER:
IX. Irreversible and Irretrievable Commitment of
Resources
Identify those natural and human resources listed
in Section IV that will be consumed, converted or
made unavailable for future use.
X. Growth Inducing Aspects
Describe in this section the potential growth
aspects the proposed project may have. Listed
below are examples of topics that are typically af-
"ected by the growth induced by a project.
D A. POPULATION
1. increases in business and resident
population due to the creation or
relocation of business
2. Increases in resident population due
to the construction of housing
B. SUPPORT FACILITIES
1. Businesses created to serve the in-
creased population
2. Service industries created to supply
new facility
I C. DEVELOPMENT POTENTIAL
1. Introduction or improvement of in-
frastructure (roads, waste disposal,
sewers, water) to service proposed
project
2. Creation of further growth potential
by construction of improved in-
frastructure
D D. OTHER:
XI. Effects on the Gse and Conservation of Energy
Resources
identify the energy sources to be used, an-
ticipated levels of consumption and ways to reduce
energy consumption. The examples listed below are
typical issues to be considered when addressing this
topic.
D A. PROPOSED ENERGY SOURCES AND
ALTERNATIVES
D B. ANTICIPATED SHORT-TERM/LONG-TERM
LEVELS OF ENERGY CONSUMPTION
D C. INDIRECT EFFECTS ON ENERGY CON-
SUMPTION
1. Increased dependence on
automobile use
2. increased levels of traffic due to pro-
posed project
D D. ENERGY CONSERVATION MEASURES
1. Design methods to reduce fuel use
for heating, cooling, and lighting
a.) conventional technology
examples:
—insulation
—thermopane windows
—use of low wattage lights
b.) innovative technology
examples:
—heat pumps
—solar panels
—wind energy
—use of waste heat from an in-
dustrial plant
c.) efficient layout
examples:
—orientation of structures in
relation to summer and winter
sunlight
—clustering of structures to
maximize common wails
—shortening of utility runs
—shared insulation and heating
2. indirect energy benefits
a.) location and design of facility to
accomodate mass transit
b.) use of shuttle buses
c.) location of facility to minimize
travel distance
D E. OTHER:
1.3.6-14
-------
1
XII. Appendices
Following is a list of materials typically used in
support of the EiS.
A. List of underlying studies, reports and infor-
mation considered and relied on in preparing state-
ment
B. List all federal, state, regional, or local agen-
cies, organizations, consultants and private persons
consulted in preparing the statement
C. Technical exhibits (if any) at a legible scale
D. Relevant correspondence regarding the pro-
jects may be included (required in the Final EIS)
Additional Draft EIS Scoping Topics
Indicate any additional topics for discussion in the
Draft EiS. Attach additional sheets if necessary.
1.3.6-15
-------
1.3.6-16
-------
CbeckiMlof Pata>imlEaviraeaautllmpteaaf t Tfanjportukm Project (Source: A.D. Link. IK. 1971. Trsjapocuiioa and Environment
l Eavix-aameaxal Policy Act of 1969 on ifae Department of Transportation. Vol. I-IU. prepared for the Office of fee Secretary.
Department of Transportation. Jury 1971.)
CATEGORY
I. None Impacts
A. Public health
B. Land Hie
0. Air Quality Impacts
A. Public health
B. Land UK
DI. Water Qualify Impacts
A. Ground Water
1. Flow and water table alteration*
2. Interaction with turfacediamaje
B. Surface Water
1. Shoreline and bottom alteration
2. Effects of filling tod dredging
3. Drainage mod flood characteristics
C. Qualify Aspect!
1. Effect of effluent loadingi
2. Implication of other action*, such as
a. Disturbance of bcnthic layers
b. Alteration of currents
c. Changes in flow regime
d. Saline intrusion in ground water
3. Land we
4. Public health
IV. Soil Erosion Impacto
A. Economic and Land Use
B. Pollution and SUtatkn
V. Ecological Impacts
A. Fhm
B. Fnma (other than hm""*)
VI. Economic Impacts
A. Land Use
1. In "•"*»!-«- vicinity of project
2. In local jurisdiction served
3. In region
B. Tax Base
1. Loss through dispaKTmcnt
2. Gain through increased values
C. Employment
2. Creation of new jobs
3. Displacement from jobs
D. Housing and Public Services
1. Demand for new services
2. Alteration in "'"mi services
E. Income
F. Damage to economically- valuable natural resources
VQ. Sociopolitical Impacts
A. Damage to, or use of:
1. Cultural resources
2. Scientific resources
3. Historical resources
4. Recreational areas
B. Lifestyle and Activities
1. Increased mobility
2. Disruption of community
C. Perception of cost/benefit by different cohesive groups
1. Racial
2. Ethnic
3. Income class
D. Personal Safety
Vm. Aesthetic and Visual Impacts
A. Scenic Resources
B. Urban Design
C. Noise
D. Air Qualify
E. Water Qualify
PLANNING.
DESIGN
•~ ™ "
CONSTRUCTION
—
OPERATION
1.3.6-17
-------
1.3.6-18
-------
SECTION 1.4
DECISION TO PROCEED
-------
-------
SCREENING
Once the environmental information is available, the proposed activity can be
reviewed in order to determine the appropriate level of environmental assessment.
This internal procedure is often referred to as "screening."
There are two approaches to screening, categorical and discretionary, and most EA
requirements [e.g., the CEQ regulations implementing NEPA (Part D) and the EC
Directive on EIA, 85/337/EEC (1985)] provide for a combination of approaches.
— Under the categorical approach, the proposed activity is compared to pre-
determined lists of specific categories of activities that 1) can be excluded
from EA or will 2) always be subject to EA. Often the applicability of the
exclusion list is determined by eligibility criteria 9e.g., if the proposed
activity has the potential to affect a valued wetland or other sensitive area, it
will be subject to EA even if it is on the exclusion list). The categorical
approach reduces uncertainty and delay in determining which proposed
activities will be subject to detailed EA.
- Under the discretionary approach, if the proposed activity cannot be
categorically excluded, the proponent decides on the appropriate level of EA.
An (EA) document is prepared to assess the environmental significance of the
proposed activity.
- If it is determined that the proposed activity may significantly affect
the quality of the human environment, then a full environmental
assessment is required, starting with the scoping process and
culminating in an environmental impact assessment (EIA) that
documents for the decisionmaker the information needed to decide
between the proposed activity and one of the alternatives.
- If it is determined that the proposed activity will not significantly
affect the quality of the human environment and/or that potentially
less significant impacts can be easily mitigated, then the proponent
prepares a brief document that explains1 why the project will not
significantly affect the environment, and if applicable, describes the
mitigation measures.
Public involvement in the EA process usually begins when the decision is made that
an EIA is required.
1.4-1
-------
-------
SECTION 1.5
DRAFT/FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT
ASSESSMENT ANALYSIS AND
DOCUMENTATION
-------
-------
SCOPING
Scoping is a process of interaction between interested publics, government
agencies and proponents to determine the important issues and alternatives that
should be examined in environmental impact assessment. In its broadest sense,
it includes public involvement throughout the EA process starting with public
scoping meetings as soon as the proponent decides that information on the
proposed activity is complete enough for the process to begin; continuing with
public review and comment on the assessment documentation; and culminating
with public involvement during the post-decision and follow-up phases. At any
time during these various phases, the scope of a project EA can change. In the
U.S., if there are substantial changes to a proposal or significant new
circumstances or information relevant to environmental concerns, a supplement
to an EA document can be prepared. Scoping is especially useful for
controversial activities that involve diverse interest groups and government
agencies.
During the scoping process, formal and informal opportunities should be
provided for the public and government agencies to voice their concerns, raise
new issues, suggest modifications to proposed actions, and present additional
alternatives. For the proponent, scoping provides the opportunity to describe the
proposed activity and to obtain additional information from the public and
government agencies (e.g., studies and reports relevant to the project,
identification of local expertise, and regulatory constraints). In addition, scoping
enhances the proponent's credibility, improves relationships with the affected
parties, and may help in avoiding unforseen developments or surprises.
A report summarizing the scoping process, the significant alternatives and
issues, and including comments received from the public should be prepared and
made available to all interested parties. The report should describe the issues and
the extent of coverage to be expected in the EIA.
The objectives of scoping (Attachment 3.A) are:
• To identify the affected public and agency concerns;
• To facilitate an efficient EIA preparation process, through
assembling the cooperating agencies, assigning EIA writing tasks,
1.5.1-1
*For purposes of this document, the term Environmental Assessment (EA) will refer to the
Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) process.
-------
• it
ascertaining all the related permits and reviews that must be
scheduled concurrently, and setting time or page limits;
To define the issues and alternatives that will be examined in detail
in the EIA while simultaneously devoting less attention and time
to issues which cause no concern; and
To save time in the overall process by helping to ensure that draft
statements adequately address relevant .issues, reducing the
possibilities that new comments will cause a statement to be
rewritten or supplemented.
I NEEDS
'• : '•• ' • • '•• . ; ;• ' ! . .
Preliminary Project Information. Prior to public and
government agency involvement, the proponent should assemble
and make available to known interested parties a packet of
information about the proposed activity, including a preliminary
outline of the EIA. The information packet is based on
environmental information prepared during the initiation phase
(Chapter 2.1). The information serves as a starting point for
discussion at scoping meetings and any other public meetings; it
helps to focus discussion on the proposed activity. In general, the
information should:
- describe the purpose and need for the proposed activity, .
describe the proposed activity,
identify the potentially affected geographic area,
describe the important characteristics of the area,
review the preliminary alternatives, and
discuss known project-related issues.
Early Planning. Scoping meetings should be held very early in
the EA process. The key to successful meetings is appropriate
notification and participation of the publics and government
agencies and availability/distribution of enough information on the
proposed activity so that the public and relevant agencies can
participate effectively. If the proposed activity is regional or
national in scale, several meetings may be held in different
locations. The duration of meetings will vary depending on the
level of controversy or interest in the proposed activity.
,','_; . . |
Public Involvement Strategy. Public involvement, particularly
when it occurs early in the EA process, can result in better
reasoned and more legally defensible decisions, as well as, less
controversy and broader public acceptance of the decisions. There
1.5.1-2
-------
are a variety of techniques available for involving the public (Table
2-1); however, each public involvement strategy must be tailored
to the circumstances of the proposed activity, as well as the
community in which the public involvement process is to occur.
Once the interested publics and government agencies are identified,
their continued involvement should be solicited throughout the EA
process.
Although scoping meetings are designed to involve the public, the
proponent has the ultimate responsibility for selecting the
alternatives to be evaluated in the environmental assessment.
Thus, the proponent seldom tries to reach a consensus among
participants at meetings/hearings on what issues are significant and
which alternatives should be evaluated. Rather, careful notes are
taken (often by tape recorder or a court reporter) and revisions are
made to the scope of work later, as appropriate. Decisions on the
choice of alternatives are guided by public interest and the
proponent's mandated responsibilities.
TOOLS
Public Meetings. There is no uniform set of guidelines for the
conduct of scoping meetings or public hearings. In general,
scoping meetings precede preparation of EA documentation and
public hearings follow publication of the draft EA documentation.
In public hearings, citizens can testify about the draft
documentation and hear the testimony of others. A scoping
meeting is generally less formal than a hearing. In either case,
meetings are best conducted by an independent, neutral moderator
who has a thorough understanding of EA requirements and who
has been involved in the development of the specific procedures to
be followed. Legal counsel is usually present at the meetings. A
professional moderator is trained to focus the discussions, maintain
the schedule, and de-fuse impending controversy. In the opening
remarks, the moderator should:
explain what scoping is,
describe the procedure for the meeting,
point out that comments should be relevant to the proposed
activity,
reiterate that no decision has been made on the proposal or
the contents of the EA documentation, and
encourage the audience to focus on the alternatives, issues,
and additional information that they can provide.
1.5.1-3
-------
Relative to public meetings, the following activities have
been shown to be useful:
N '."«'.„, 'i ' ' "
- A premeeting/prehearing conference of all identified and
potentially interested publics and government agencies to
identify key procedural and substantive issues related to the
proposed activity.
Preparation and distribution of a handout that explains what
scoping is and how the particular meeting/hearing is to be
conducted.
Development of a format for the meeting/hearing to include
style of meeting, logistics and set up of the meeting room,
arid procedures for speakers (i.e., registration, order of
speaking, time allowed). Question and answer sessions can
be useful in meetings as well as hearings, provided the
process is carefully structured in advance (i.e., the
appropriate expertise is present to respond). Town hall
meeting forums (a roving moderator with microphone) are
useful if the meeting is small. In general, for scoping
meetingsj the moderator's opening statement can be brief
and informal. For hearings, the moderators opening
statement is more formal, longer, and proponent
presentations are generally limited.
A post meeting/hearing consultation with key participants
to provide additional information and
clarification/understanding of each others positions. Such
meetings should be informal but the basic ground rules
need to be clear to everyone.
The process of scoping is not limited to interagency and public meetings.
Other activities that have been shown to be useful include:
'! , , ''' ''''•' ,1 , , i
• Advisory Committees. When projects are large and/or
controversial, appointment of an advisory committee of
independent experts can help to identify issues, generate
alternatives, provide mitigation measures, and review and comment
on EA documentation.
• Workshops. Representatives of interested groups can be invited
to work together in small groups to assess alternatives and evaluate
their feasibility.
•''. • • '•'• : - • ••. , (. •.:
In each of the above cases, however, the final decision on the scope and content
of the EA is the responsibility of the agency.
1.5.1-4
-------
• Other Public Involvement Strategies. Table 2-1 lists public
involvement strategies and evaluates their usefulness. In addition
to these, agencies are increasingly using a special telephone
number (i.e., a hotline) to take public comments before, after or
instead of a public meeting.
ISSUES
The importance of scoping to the preparation of adequate and effective EA
documentation is recognized by most publics and government agencies. It
originated in response to the uneven implementation of NEPA by U.S.
government agencies (i.e., some agencies obscured the important issues in
massive EA documents while others prepared brief documents that failed to
analyze the important issues). The concept has been adopted by other countries
(e.g., Canada, The Netherlands, Poland) as a means to determine important issues
and alternatives to be examined during EA. Although the principle of scoping is
appropriate at all levels of decisionmaking, at the broadest level of government
decisionmakmg (i.e., for policy, program, and plan initiatives), scoping is mostly
internal to an agency. Other affected government agencies may be asked to
participate, but the public is seldom invited.
In practice, approaches to scoping vary widely depending on the nature of
a proposed activity, the proponent's resources, and the public interest.
Throughout the process, it is important to remain flexible, keeping in mind that
the overall goal of EA is providing appropriate information and analyses in order
that informed decisions can be made:
• The benefits of scoping include:
early identification of areas that will need attention (e.g.,
information gaps, additional research, additional
professional expertise, regulatory constraints);
improved efficiency and effectiveness. The public is
provided with opportunities to understand and influence the
EA process early on and the proponent gains insight into
the issues of real concern. As a result, the proponent can
focus the environmental analyses on realistic alternatives
and mitigation measures at the early stages of project
planning;
resolution of problems before documents are prepared and
decisions are made which lessens the opportunities for
surprises and for litigation; and
enhanced credibility and public support. Although conflicts
may still arise, if the public understands the purpose and
need for the proposed activity and if it is clear that the
1.5.1-5
-------
proponent is considering all reasonable alternatives, then
the public is more likely to be satisfied with the final
decision.
• Some common problems associated with scoping are:
poorly defined purpose, need, and objectives of the
proposed action,
poorly prepared and/or tardy information packets,
failure to contact all affected parties,
lack of interest/participation by the public and government
agencies,
unprepared participants,
negative public attitude toward the proposed activity, and
unfocused public comments that fail to address the effects
that the EA documentation should evaluate.
"'' " • ' v ,•' ' V; •'
LINKAGES
, ."I, • • .. ' ' . ' ' .' • • • . • '' j. :
Scoping and the results of scoping are integral parts of the overall
environmental assessment process. Formal scoping meetings are a catalyst for
careful planning at the initiation stage. The results of the scoping process
determine the alternatives, issues and mitigation measures analyzed in the EA
documentation. Decisionmaking is influenced by public participation.
";"' ] ' "" • ' , '' , ' • . >V- '.'•]•,
I '' . ' " ' '' ' ' • - • • REFERENCES
.; -t -•• '.. . . •-,. . ;. • i •• ;..;. ••
Bregman, J. I. and K. M. Mackenthun. 1992. Environmental Impact
Statements. Lewis Publishers, Inc., Chelsea, Michigan. 279 pp.
Federal Environmental Assessment Review Office (FEARO). 1976. Initial
Assessment'Guide. Federal Assessment Review Office, Ottawa K1A
OH3, Ontario, Canada.
U.S. Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ). 1981. Memorandum: Scoping
Guidance. Washington, D.C. 19 pp.
1.5.1-6
-------
SCOPING GUIDANCE
• Memorandum: Scoping Guidance. (Source: Council on Environmental Quality,
April 30, 1991)
1.5.2-1
-------
1.5.2-2
-------
Memorandum: Scoping Guidance
(Council on Environmental Quality
April 30, 1981)
I. Introduction
A. Background of this document.
In 1978, with the publication of the proposed
NEPA regulations (since adopted as formal
rules, 40 C.F.R. Parts 1500-1508), the Council
on Environmental Quality gave formal
recognition to an increasingly used term —
scoping. Scoping is an idea that has long been
familiar to those involved hi NEPA compliance:
In order to manage effectively the preparation of
an environmental impact statement (EIS), one
must determine the scope of the document — that
is, what will be covered, and in what detail.
Planning of this land was a normal component
of EIS preparation. But the consideration of
issues and choice of alternatives to be examined
was hi too many cases completed outside of
public view. The innovative approach to scoping
in the regulations is that the process is open to
the public and state and local governments, as
well as to affected federal agencies. This open
process gives rise to important new opportunities
for better and more efficient NEPA analyses;
and simultaneously places new responsibilities
on public and agency participants alike to
surface their concerns early. Scoping helps
insure that real problems are identified early and
properly studied; that issues that are of no
concern do not consume time and effort; that the
draft statement when first made public is
balanced and thorough; and that the delays
occasioned by re-doing an inadequate draft are
avoided. Scoping does not create problems that
did not already exist; it ensures mat problems
that would have been raised anyway are
identified early in the process.
Many members of the public as well as agency
staffs engaged in the NEPA process have told
the Council that the open scoping requirement is
one of the most far-reaching changes engendered
by the NEPA regulations. They have predicted
that scoping could have a profound positive
effect on environmental analyses, on the impact
statement process itself, and ultimately on
decisionmaking.
Because the concept of open scoping was new,
the Council decided to encourage agencies'
innovation without unduly restrictive guidance.
Thus the regulations relating to scoping are very
simple. They state that "there shall be an early
and open process for determining the scope of
issues to be addressed" which "shall be termed
scoping," but they lay down few specific
requirements. (Section 1501.7*). They require an
open process with public notice; identification of
significant and insignificant issues; allocation of
EIS preparation assignments; identification of
related analysis requirements in order to avoid
duplication of work; and the planning of a
schedule for EIS preparation that meshes with
the agency's decisionmaking schedule. (Section
1501.7(a)). The regulations encourage, but do
not require, setting tune limits and page limits
for the EIS, and holding scoping meetings.
(Section 1501.7(b)). Aside from these general
outlines, the regulations left the agencies on then-
own, me Council did not believe, and still does
not, that it is necessary or appropriate to dictate
the specific manner in which over 100 federal
agencies should deal with the public. However,
the Council has received several requests for
more guidance. In 1980 we decided to
investigate the agency and public response to the
scoping requirement, to find out what was
working and what was not, and to share this
with all agencies and the public.
The Council first conducted its own survey,
asking federal agencies to report some of their
scoping experiences. The Council then
"All citations are to the NEPA regulations,
40 C.F.R. Parts 1500-1508 unless otherwise
specified.
1.5.2-3
-------
contracted with the American Arbitration
Association and Clark McGlennon Associates to
survey the scoping techniques of major agencies
and to study several innovative methods in
detail."" Council staff conducted a two-day
workshop in Atlanta in June 1980, to discuss
with federal agency NEPA staff and several EIS
contractors what seems to work best hi scoping
of different types of proposals, and discussed
scoping with federal, state and local officials in
meetings in all 10 federal regions.
This document is a distillation of all the work
that has oep done so far by many people to
identify valuable scoping techniques. It is
offered as a guide to encourage success and to
help avoid pitfalls. Since scoping methods are
still evolving, the Council welcomes any
comments oh this guide, and may add to it or
revise it in coming years.
B. What scoping is and what it can do.
Scoping is often the first contact between
proponents of a proposal and the public. This
fact is the source of the power of scoping and of
the trepidation that it sometimes evokes. If a
scoping meeting is held, people on botHTsides of
an issue will be in the same room and, if all
goes well, will speak to each other. The
possibilities that flow from this situation are
vast. Therefore, a large portion of this
document is devoted to the productive
management of meetings and the de-fusing of
possible heated disagreements.
"The results of this examination are reported in
''Scoping the Content of EISs: An Evaluation of
Agencies' Experiences," which is available from
the Council or the Resource Planning Analysis
•Office of the U.S. Geological Survey, 750
National Center, Reston, Va. 22092.
Even if a meeting is not held, the scoping
process leads EIS preparers to think about the
proposal early on, in order tti explain it to the
public and affected agencies. The participants
respond with their own concerns about
significant issues and suggestions of alternatives.
Thus as the draft EIS is prepared, it will
include, from the beginning, a reflection or at
least an acknowledgement of the cooperating
agencies' and the public's concerns. This
reduces the need for changes after the draft is
finished, because it reduces the chances of
overlooking a significant issue or reasonable
alternative. It also in many cases increases
public confidence in NEPA and the
decisionmaking process, thereby reducing
delays, such as from litigation, later on when
implementing the decisions. As we will discuss
further in this document, the public generally
responds positively when its views are taken
seriously, even if they cannot be wholly
accommodated.
But scoping is not simply another "public
relations" meeting requirement. It has specific
and fairly limited objectives: (a) to identify the
affected public and agency concerns; (b) to
facilitate an efficient EIS preparation process,
through assembling the cooperating agencies,
assigning EIS writing tasks, ascertaining all the
related permits and reviews that must be
scheduled concurrently, and setting time or page
limits; (c) to define line issues and alternatives
that will be examined in detail hi the EIS while
simultaneously devoting less attention and time
to issues which cause no concern; and (d) to
save time in the overall process by helping to
ensure that draft statements adequately address
relevant issues, reducing the possibility that new
comments will cause a statement to be rewritten
or supplemented.
Sometimes the scoping process enables early
identification of a few serious problems with a
proposal, which can be changed or solved
because the proposal is,still being developed. In
these cases, scoping the EIS can actually lead to
1.5.2-4
-------
the solution of a conflict over the proposed
action itself. We have found that this extra
benefit of scoping occurs fairly frequently. But
it cannot be expected in most cases, and scoping
can still be considered successful when conflicts
are clarified but not solved. This guide does not
presume that resolution of conflicts over
proposals is a principal goal of scoping, because
it is only possible in limited circumstances.
Instead, the Council views the principal goal of
scoping to be an adequate and efficiently
prepared EIS. Our suggestions and
recommendations are aimed at reducing the
conflicts among affected interests that impede
this limited objective. But we are aware of the
possibilities of more general conflict resolution
that are inherent in any productive discussions
among interested parties. We urge all
participants in scoping processes to be alert to
this larger context, in which scoping could prove
to be the first step in environmental
problem-solving.
Scoping can lay a firm foundation for the rest of
the decisionmaking process. If the EIS can be
relied upon to include all the necessary informa-
tion for formulating policies and making rational
choices, the agency will be better able to make
a sound and prompt decision. In addition, if it is
clear that all reasonable alternatives are being
seriously considered, the public will usually be
more satisfied with the choice among them.
II. Advice for Government Agencies
Conducting Scoping
A. General context.
Scoping is a process, not an event or a meeting.
It continues throughout the planning for an EIS,
and may involve a series of meetings, telephone
conversations, or written comments from
different interested groups. Because it is a
process, participants must remain flexible. The
scope of an EIS occasionally may need to be
modified later if a new issue surfaces, no matter
how thorough the scoping was. But it makes
sense to try to set the scope of the statement as
early as possible.
Scoping may identify people who already have
knowledge about a site or an alternative proposal
or a relevant study, and induce them to make it
available. This can save a lot of research time
and money. But people will not come forward
unless they believe their views and materials will
receive serious consideration. Thus scoping is a
crucial first step toward building public
confidence in a fair environmental analysis and
ultimately a fair decisionmaking process.
One further point to remember: the lead agency
cannot shed its responsibility to assess each
significant impact or alternative even if one is
found after scoping. But anyone who hangs back
and fails to raise something that reasonably
could have been raised earlier on will have a
hard time prevailing during later stages of the
NEPA process or if litigation ensues. Thus a
thorough scoping process does provide some
protection against subsequent lawsuits.
B. Step-by-step through the process.
1. Start scoping after you have enough
information.
Scoping cannot be useful until the agency knows
enough about the proposed action to identify
most of the affected parties, and to present a
coherent proposal and a suggested initial list of
environmental issues and alternatives. Until that
time there is no way to explain to the public or
other agencies what you want them to get
involved in. So the first stage is to gather
preliminary information from the applicant, or to
compose a clear picture of your proposal, if it is
being developed by the agency.
1.5.2-5
-------
2. Prepare an information packet.
In many cases, scoping of the EIS has been
preceded by preparation of an environmental
assBsment (EA) as the basis for the decision to
proceed with an EIS. In such cases, the EA will,
of course, include the preliminary information
that is needed.
'i." • i'1, . ''„ .jj;;
If you have not prepared an EA, you should put
together a brief information packet consisting of
a description of the proposal, an initial list of
impacts and alternatives, maps, drawings, and
any other material or references that can help the
interested public to understand what is being
proposed. The proposed work plan of the EIS is
not usually sufficient for this purpose. Such
documents rarely contain a description of the
goals of the proposal to enable readers to
develop alternatives.
"" "ill ''• r.n
, ' '"_ .„"(' . ";,ii , • : , ;
At this stage, the purpose of the information is
to enable participants to make an intelligent
contribution to scoping the EIS. Because they
will be helping to plan what will be examined
during the environmental review, they need to
knpw where you are now in that planning
process.
Include in the packet a brief explanation of what
scoping is, and what procedure will be used, to
give potential participants a context for their
involvement. Be sure to point out that you want
comments from participants on very specific
matters. Also reiterate that no decision has yet
been made on the contents of the EIS, much less
on the proposal itself. Thus, explain that you do
not yet have I preferred alternative, but that you
may identify the preferred alternative in the draft
EIS. (See Section 1502.14(e)). This should
reduce the tendency of participants to perceive
the proposal as already a definite plan.
Encourage them to focus on recommendations
for improvements to the various alternatives.
Some of the complaints alleging that scoping can
'be a waste of time stem from the fact that the
participants may not know what the proposal is
until they arrive at a meeting. Even the most
intelligent among us can rarely make useful,
substantive comments on the spur of the
moment. Don't expect helpful suggestions to
result if participants are put in such a position.
3. Design the scoping process for each project.
There is no established or required procedure for
scoping. The process can be carried out by
meetings, telephone conversations, written
comments, or a combination of all three. It is
important to tailor the type, the timing and the
location of public and agency comments to the
proposal at hand.
For example, a proposal to adopt a land
management plan for a National Forest in a
sparsely populated region may not lend itself to
calling a single meeting in a central location.
While people living in the area and elsewhere
may be interested, any meeting place will be
inconvenient for most of the potential
participants. One solution is to distribute the
information packet, solicit written comments, list
a telephone number with the name of the
scoping coordinator, and invite comments to be
phoned in. Otherwise, small meetings in several
locations may be necessary when face-to-face
communication is important.
In another case, a site-specific construction
project may be proposed. This would be a better
candidate for a central scoping meeting. But you
must first find out if anyone would be interested
in attending such a meeting. If you simply
assume that a meeting is necessary, you may
hire a hall and a stenographer, assemble your
staff for a meeting, and find that nobody shows
up. There are many proposals that just do not
generate sufficient public interest to cause people
to attend another public meeting. So a wise early
step is to contact known local citizens groups
and civic leaders.
1.5.2-6
-------
In addition, you may suggest in your initial
scoping notice and information packet that all
those who desire a meeting should call to request
one. That way you will only hear from those
who are seriously interested in attending.
The question of where to hold a meeting is a
difficult one in many cases. Except for site
specific construction projects, it may be unclear
where the interested parties can be found. For
example, an EIS on a major energy development
program may involve policy issues and
alternatives to the program that are of interest to
public groups all over the nation, and to
agencies headquartered in Washington, D.C.,
while the physical impacts might be expected to
be felt most strongly in a particular region of the
country. In such a case, if personal contact is
desired, several meetings would be necessary,
especially in the affected region and hi
Washington, to enable all interests to be heard.
As a general guide, unless a proposal has no site
specific impacts, scoping meetings should not be
confined to Washington. Agencies should try to
elicit the views of people who are closer to the
affected regions.
The key is to be flexible. It may not be possible
to plan the whole scoping process at the outset,
unless you know who all the potential players
are. You can start with written comments, move
on to an informal meeting, and hold further
meetings if desired.
There are several reasons to hold a scoping
meeting. First, some of the best effects of
scoping stem from the fact that all parties have
the opportunity to meet one another and to listen
to the concerns of the others. There is no
satisfactory substitute for personal contact to
achieve this result. If there is any possibility that
resolution of underlying conflicts over a
proposal may be achieved, this is always
enhanced by the development of personal and
working relationships among the parties.
Second, even in a conflict situation people
usually respond positively when they are treated
as partners in the project review process. If they
feel confident that their views were actually
heard and taken seriously, they will be more
likely to be satisfied that the decisionmaking
process was fair even if they disagree with the
outcome. It is much easier to show people that
you are listening to them if you hold a
face-to-face meeting where they can see you
writing down their points, than if their only con-
tact is through written comments.
If you suspect that a particular proposal could
benefit from a meeting with the affected public
at any time during its review, the best time to
have the meeting is during this early scoping
stage. The fact that you are willing to discuss
openly a proposal before you have committed
substantial resources to it will often enhance the
chances for reaching an accord.
If you decide that a public meeting is
appropriate, you still must decide what type of
meeting, or how many meetings, to hold. We
will discuss meetings hi detail below in
"Conducting a Public Meeting." But as part of
designing the scoping process, you must decide
between a single meeting and multiple ones for
different interest groups, and whether to hold a
separate meeting for government agency
participants.
The single large public meeting brings together
all the interested parties, which has both
advantages and disadvantages. If the meeting is
efficiently run, you can cover a lot of interests
and issues in a short time. And a single meeting
does reduce agency travel time and expense. In
some cases it may be an advantage to have all
interest groups hear each others' concerns,
possibly promoting compromise. It is definitely
important to have the staffs of the cooperating
agencies, as well as the lead agency, hear the
public views of what the significant issues are;
and it will be difficult and expensive for the
cooperating agencies to attend several meetings.
1.5.2-7
-------
But if there are opposing groups of citizens who
feel strongly on both sides of an issue, the
setting of the large meeting may needlessly
create tension and an emotional confrontation
between the groups. Moreover, some people
may feel intimidated in such a setting, and won't
express themselves at all.
.r '• •, "is , • • • , . . ..;k
The principal drawback of the large meeting,
however, is that it is generally unwieldy. To
keep order, discussion is limited, dialogue is
difficult, and often all participants are frustrated,
agency and public alike. Large meetings can
serve to identify the interest groups for future
discussion, but often little else is accomplished.
Large meetings often become "events" where
grandstanding substitutes for substantive
comments. Many agencies resort to a formal
hearing-type format to maintain control, and this
can cause resentments among participants who
come to the meeting expecting a responsive
discussion.
For these reasons, we recommend that meetings
be kept small and informal, and that you hold
several, if necessary, to accommodate the
different interest groups. The other solution is to
break a large gathering into small discussion
groups, which is discussed below. Using either
method increases the likelihood that participants
will level with you and communicate their
underlying concerns rather than make an
emotional statement just for effect.
Moreover, in our experience, a separate meeting
for cooperating agencies is quite productive.
Working relationships can be forged for the
'.{Effective participation of all involved in the
preparation of tie EIS. Work assignments are
made by the lead agency, a schedule may be set
for production of parts of the draft EIS, and
information gaps can be identified early. But a
productive meeting such as this is not possible at
the very beginning of the process. It can only
result from the same sort of planning and prepa-
ration that goes into the public meetings. We
"discuss below the special problems of
cooperating agencies, and their information
needs for effective participation in scoping.
4. Issuing the public notice.
The preliminary look at the proposal, in which
you develop the information packet discussed
above, will enable you to tell what kind of
public notice will be most appropriate and
effective.
Section 1501.7 of the NEPA regulations requires
that a notice of intent to prepare an EIS must be
published in the Federal Register prior to initia-
ting scoping.""" This means that one of the
appropriate means of giving public notice of the
upcoming scoping process could be the same
Federal Register notice. And because the notice
of intent must be published anyway, the scoping
notice would be essentially free. But use of the
Federal Register is not an absolute requirement,
and other means of public notice often are more
""Several agencies have found it useful to
conduct scoping for environmental assessments.
EAs are prepared where answering the question
of whether an EIS is necessary requires
identification of significant environmental issues;
and consideration of alternatives in an EA can
often be useful even where an EIS is not
necessary. In both situations scoping can be
valuable. Thus the Council has stated that
scoping may be used in connection with
preparation of an EA, that is, before publishing
any notice of intent to prepare an EIS. As in
normal scoping, appropriate public notice is
required, as well as adequate information on the
proposal to make scoping worthwhile. But
scoping at this early stage cannot substitute for
the normal scoping process unless the earlier
public notice stated clearly that this would be the
case, and the notice of intent expressly provides
that written comments suggesting impacts and
alternatives for study will still be considered.
1.5.2-8
-------
effective, including local newspapers, radio and
TV, posting notices in public places, etc. (See
Section 1506.6 of the regulations.)
What is important is that the notice actually
reach the affected public. If the proposal is an
important new national policy in which national
environmental groups can be expected to be
interested, these groups can be contacted by
form letter with ease. (See the Conservation
Directory for a list of national groups.**"")
Similarly, for proposals that may have major
implications for the business community, trade
associations can be helpful means of alerting
affected groups. The Federal Register notice can
be relied upon to notify others that you did not
know about. But the Federal Register is of little
use for reaching individuals or local groups
interested in a site specific proposal. Therefore
notices in local papers, letters to local
government officials and personal contact with a
few known interested individuals would be more
appropriate. Land owners abutting any proposed
project site should be notified individually.
Remember that issuing press releases to
newspapers, and radio and TV stations is not
enough, because they may not be used by the
media unless the proposal is considered
"newsworthy." If the proposal is controversial,
you can try alerting reporters or editors to an
upcoming scoping meeting for coverage in
special weekend sections used by many papers.
But placing a notice in the legal notices section
of the paper is the only guarantee that it will be
published.
5. Conducting a public meeting.
In our study of agency practice in conducting
scoping, the most interesting information on
"The Conservation Directory is a publication
of the National Wildlife Federation, 1421 16th
St., N.W., Washington, D.C. 20036.
what works and doesn't work involves the
conduct of meetings. Innovative techniques have
been developed, and experience shows that these
can be successful.
One of the most important factors turns out to be
the training and experience of the moderator.
The U.S. Office of Personnel Management and
others give training courses on how to run a
meeting effectively. Specific techniques are
taught to keep the meeting on course and to deal
with confrontations. These techniques are
sometimes called "meeting facilitation skills."
When holding a meeting, the principle thing to
remember about scoping is that it is a process to
initiate preparation of an EIS. It is not concerned
with the ultimate decision on the proposal. A
fruitful scoping process leads to an adequate
environmental analysis, including all reasonable
alternatives and mitigation measures. This
limited goal is in the interest of all the
participants, and thus offers the possibility of
agreement by the parties on this much at least.
To run a successful meeting you must keep the
focus on this positive purpose.
At the point of scoping therefore, hi one sense
all the parties involved have a common goal,
which is a thorough environmental review. If
you emphasize this hi the meeting you can stop
any grandstanding speeches without a heavy
hand, by simply asking the speaker if he or she
has any concrete suggestions for the group on
issues to be covered in the EIS. By frequently
drawing the meeting back to this central purpose
of scoping, the opponents of a proposal will see
that you have not already made a decision, and
they will be forced to deal with the real issues.
In addition, when people see that you are
genuinely seeking their opinion, same will
volunteer useful information about a particular
subject or site that they may know better than
anyone on your staff.
As we stated above, we found that informal
meetings in small groups are the most
1.5.2-9
-------
satisfactory for eliciting useful issues and
information. Small groups can be formed in two
ways: you can invite different interest groups to
different meetings, or you can break a large
number into small groups for discussion.
One successful model is used by the Army
Corps of Engineers, among others. In cases
where a public meeting is desired, it is
publicized and scheduled for a location that will
be convenient for as many potential participants
as possible. The information packet is made
available in several ways, by sending it to those
known to be interested, giving a telephone
number in the public notices for use hi
requesting one, and providing more at the door
of the meeting place as well. As participants
enter the door, each is given a number.
Participants are asked to register their name,
address and/or telephone number for use in
future contact during scoping and the rest of the
NEPA process!
The first part of the meeting is devoted to a
discussion of the proposal in general, covering
its purpose, proposed location, design, and any
other aspects that can be presented in a lecture
format. A question and answer period
concerning this information is often held at this
time. Then if there are more than 15 or 20
attendees at the meeting, the next step is to
break it into small groups for more intensive
discussion. At this point, the numbers held by
the participants are used to assign them to small
groups by sequence, random drawing, or any
other method. Each group should be no larger
than 12, and 8-10 is better. The groups are
informed that their task is to prepare a list of
significant environmental issues and reasonable
alternatives for analysis in the EIS. These lists
will be presented to the main group and
combined into a master list, after the discussion
groups are finished. The rules for how priorities
are to be assigned to the issues identified by
each group should be made clear before the
large group breaks up.
Some agencies ask each group member to vote
for the 5 or 10 most important issues. After
tallying the votes of individual members, each
group would only repoit out those issues that
received a certain number of votes. In this way
only those items of most concern to the
members would even make the list compiled by
each group. Some agencies go further, and only
let each group report out the top few issues
identified. But you must be careful not to ignore
issues that may be considered a medium priority
by many people. They may still be important,
even if not in the top rank. Thus instead of
simply voting, the members of the groups should
rank the listed issues in order of perceived
importance. Points may be assigned to each item
on the basis of the rankings by each member, so
that the group can compile a list of its issues in
priority order. Each group should then be asked
to assign cut-off numbers to separate high,
medium and low priority items. Each group
should then report out to the main meeting all of
its issues, but with priorities clearly assigned.
"- ' •' I-
One member of the lead agency or cooperating
agency staff should join each group to answer
questions and to listen to the participants'
expressions of concern. It has been the
experience of many of those who have tried this
method that it is better not to have the agency
person lead the group discussions. There does
need to be a leader, who should be chosen by
the group members. In this way, the agency staff
member will not be perceived as forcing his
opinions on the others.
If the agency has a sufficient staff of formally
trained "meeting facilitators," they may be able
to achieve the same result even where agency
staff people lead the discussion groups. But
absent such training, the staff should not lead the
discussion groups. A good technique is to have
the agency person serve as the recording
secretary for the group, writing down each
impact and alternative that is suggested for study
by the participants. This enhances the neutral
status of the agency representative, and ensures
1.5.2-10
-------
that he is perceived as listening and reacting to
the views of the group. Frequently, the
recording of issues is done with a large pad
mounted on the wall like a blackboard, which
has been well received by agency and public
alike, because all can see that the views
expressed actually have been heard and
understood.
When the issues are listed, each must be
clarified or combined with others to eliminate
duplication or fuzzy concepts. The agency staff
person can actually lead in this effort because of
his need to reflect on paper exactly what the
issues are. After the group has listed all the
environmental impacts and alternatives and any
other issues that the members wish to have
considered, they are asked to discuss the relative
merits and importance of each listed item. The
group should be reminded that one of its tasks is
to eliminate insignificant issues. Following this,
the members assign priorities or vote using one
of the methods described above.
The discussion groups are then to return to the
large meeting to report on the results of their
ranking. At this point further discussion may be
useful to seek a consensus on which issues are
really insignificant. But the moderator must not
appear to be ruthlessly eliminating issues that the
participants ranked of high or medium
importance. The best that can usually be
achieved is to "deemphasize" some of them, by
placing them in the low Priority category.
6. What to do with the comments.
After you have comments from the cooperating
agencies and the interested public, you must
evaluate them and make judgments about which
issues are hi fact significant and which ones are
not. The decision of what the EIS should contain
is ultimately made by the lead agency. But you
will now know what the interested participants
consider to be the principal areas for study and
analysis. You should be guided by these
concerns, or be prepared to briefly explain why
you do not agree. Every issue that is raised as a
priority matter during scoping should be
addressed in some manner in the EIS, either by
in-depth analysis, or at least a short explanation
showing that the issue was examined, but not
considered significant for one or more reasons.
Some agencies have complained that the time
savings claimed for scoping have not been
realized because after public groups raise
numerous minor matters, they cannot focus the
EIS on the significant issues. It is true that it is
always easier to add issues than it is to subtract
them during scoping. And you should realize
that trying to eliminate a particular
environmental impact or alternative from study
may arouse the suspicions of some people.
Cooperating agencies may be even more
reluctant to eliminate issues in their areas of
special expertise than the public participants. But
the way to approach it is to seek consensus on
which issues are less important. These issues
may then be deemphasized in the EIS by a brief
discussion of why they were not examined in
depth.
If no consensus can be reached, it is still your
responsibility to select the significant issues. The
lead agency cannot abdicate its role and simply
defer to the public. Thus a group of participants
at a scoping meeting should not be able to
"vote" an insignificant matter into a big issue. If
a certain issue is raised and in your professional
judgment you believe it is not significant,
explain clearly and briefly in the EIS why it is
not significant. There is no need to devote time
and pages to it in the EIS if you can show that
it is not relevant or important to the proposed
action. But you should address in some manner
all matters that were raised in the scoping
process, either by an extended analysis or a brief
explanation showing that you acknowledge the
concern.
Several agencies have made a practice of
sending out a post-scoping document to make
public the decisions that have been made on
1.5.2-11
-------
J
what issues to coyer in the EIS. This is not a
requirement, but in certain controversial cases it
can be worthwhile. Especially when scoping has
been conducted by written comments, and there
has been no face-to-face contact, a postscoping
document is the only assurance to the
participants that they were heard and understood
until the draft EIS comes out. Agencies have
acknowledged to us that "letters instead of
meetings seem to get disregarded easier." Thus
a reasonable quid pro quo for relying on
comment letters would be to send out a
post-scoping document as feedback to the
commentors.
The post-scoping document may be as brief as a
list of impacts and alternatives selected for
analysis; it may consist of the "scope of work"
produced by the lead and cooperating agencies
for their own EIS work or for the contractor; or
it may be a special document that describes all
the issues and explains why they were selected.
7. Allocating work assignments and setting
schedules.
Following the public participation in whatever
form, and the selection of issues to be covered,
the lead agency must allocate the EIS
preparation work among the available resources.
If there are no cooperating agencies, the lead
agency allocates work among its own personnel
or contractors. If there are cooperating agencies
involved, they may be assigned specific research
or writing tasks. The NEPA regulations require
that they normally devote their own resources to
the issues in which they have special expertise or
jurisdiction by law. (Sections 1501.6(b)(3), (5),
and 1501.7(a)(4)).
In all cases, the lead agency should set a
schedule for completion of the work, designate
a project manager and assign the reviewers, and
must set a time limit for the entire NEPA
analysis if requested to do so by an applicant.
(Section 1501.8).
8. A few ideas to try.
a. Route design workshop
As part of a scoping process, a successful
innovation by one agency involved route
selection for a railroad. The agency invited
representatives of the interested groups
(identified at a previous public meeting) to try
their hand at designing alternative routes for a
proposed rail segment. Agency staff explained
design constraints and evaluation criteria such as
the desire to minimize damage to prune
agricultural land and valuable wildlife habitat.
The participants were divided into small groups
for a few hours of intensive work. After learning
of the real constraints on alternative routes, the
participants had a better understanding of the
agency's and applicant's viewpoints. Two of the
participants actually supported alternative routes
that affected their own land because the overall
impacts of these routes appeared less adverse.
The participants were asked to rank the five
alternatives they had devised and the top two
were included in the EIS. But the agency did not
permit the groups to apply the same evaluation
criteria to the routes proposed by the applicant
or the agency. Thus public confidence in the
process was not as high as it could have been,
and probably was reduced when the applicant's
proposal was ultimately selected.
The Council recommends that when a hands-on
design workshop is used, the assignment of the
group be expanded to include evaluation of the
reasonableness of all the suggested alternatives.
b. Hotline
Several agencies have successfully used a special
telephone number, essentially a hotline, to take
public comments before, after, or instead of a
public meeting. It helps to designate a named
staff member to receive these calls so that some
continuity and personal relationships can be
developed.
1.5.2-12
-------
c. Videotape of sites
A videotape of proposed sites is an excellent tool
for explaining site differences and limitations
during the lecture-format part of a scoping
meeting.
d. Videotape meetings
One agency has videotaped whole scoping
meetings. Staff found that the participants took
their roles more seriously and the taping
appeared not to precipitate grandstanding tactics.
e. Review committee
Success has been reported from one agency
which sets up review committees, representing
all interested groups, to oversee the scoping
process. The committees help to design the
scoping process. In cooperation with the lead
agency, the committee reviews the materials
generated by the scoping meeting. Again,
however, the final decision on EIS content is the
responsibility of the lead agency.
f. Consultant as meeting moderator
In some hotly contested cases, several agencies
have used the EIS consultant to actually run the
scoping meeting. This is permitted under the
NEPA regulations and can be useful to de-fuse
a tense atmosphere if the consultant is perceived
as a neutral third party. But the responsible
agency officials must attend the meetings. There
is no substitute for developing a relationship
between the agency officials and the affected
parties. Moreover, if the responsible officials are
not prominently present, the public may interpret
that to mean mat the consultant is actually
making the decisions about the EIS, and not the
lead agency.
g. Money saving tips
Remember that money can be saved by using
conference calls instead of meetings,
tape-recording the meetings instead of hiring a
stenographer, and finding out whether people
want a meeting before announcing it.
C. Pitfalls.
We list here some of the problems that have
been experienced in certain scoping cases, in
order to enable others to avoid the same
difficulties.
1. Closed meetings.
In response to informal advice from CEQ that
holding separate meetings for agencies and the
public would be permitted under the regulations
and could be more productive, one agency
scheduled a scoping meeting for the cooperating
agencies some weeks in advance of the public
meeting. Apparently, the lead agency felt that
the views of the cooperating agencies would be
more candidly expressed if the meeting were
closed. In any event, several members of the
public learned of the meeting and asked to be
present. The lead agency acquiesced only after
newspaper reporters were able to make a story
out of the closed session. At the meeting, the
members of the public were informed that they
would not be allowed to speak, nor to record the
proceedings. The ill feeling aroused by this
chain of events may not be repaired for a long
time. Instead, we would suggest the following
possibilities:
a. Although separate meetings for agencies and
public groups may be more efficient, there is no
magic to them. By all means, if someone insists
on attending the agency meeting, let him. There
is nothing as secret going on there as he may
think there is if you refuse him admittance.
Better yet, have your meeting of cooperating
agencies after the public meeting. That may be
the most logical time anyway, since only then
can the scope of the EIS be decided upon and
assignments made among the agencies. If it is
well done, the public meeting will satisfy most
1.5.2-13
-------
peSple and show them that you are listening to
them.
b. Always permit recording. In fact, you should
suggest it for public meetings. All parties will
feel better if there is a record of the proceeding.
There is no rieecl for'a stenographer, and tape is
inexpensive. It may even be better then a typed
transcript, because staff and decisionmakers who
did not attend the meeting can listen to the
exchange and may learn a lot about public
perceptions of the proposal.
' '• . 1 '" i,' 1! ' , -, I
c. When people are admitted to a meeting, it
makes no sense to refuse their requests to speak.
However, you can legitimately limit their state-
ments to the subject at hand—scoping. You do
not have to permit some participants to waste the
Others' time if they refuse to focus on the
impacts and alternatives for inclusion in the EIS.
Having a tape of the proceedings could be useful
after the meeting if there is some question that
speakers were improperly silenced. But it takes
an experienced moderator to handle a situation
like this.
d. The scoping stage is the time for building
confidence and trust on all sides of a proposal,
because this is the only time when there is a
common enterprise. The attitudes formed at this
stage can carry through the project review
process. Certainly it is difficult for things to get
better. So foster the good will as long as you
can by listening to what is being said during
scoping. It is possible that out of that dialogue
may appear recommendations for changes and
mitigation measures that can turn a controversial
fight into an acceptable proposal.
2. Contacting interested groups.
Some problems have arisen in scoping where
agencies failed to contact all the affected parties,
such as industries or state and local
governments. In one case, a panel was
assembled to represent various interests in
scoping an ElS on a wildlife-related program.
The agency had an excellent format for the
meeting, but the panel did not represent
industries that would be affected by the program
or interested state and local governments. As a
result, the EIS may fail to reflect the issues of
concern to these parties.
Another agency reported to us that it failed to
contact parties directly because staff feared that
if they missed someone they would be accused
of favoritism. Thus they relied on the issuance
of press releases which were not effective. Many
people who did not learn about the meetings in
time sought additional meeting opportunities,
which cost extra money and delayed the process.
In our experience, the attempt to reach people is
worth the effort. Even if you miss someone, it
will be clear that you tried. You can enlist a few
representatives of an interest group to help you
identify and contact others. Trade associations,
chambers of commerce, local civic groups, and
local and national conservation groups can
spread the word to members.
3. Tiering.
Many people are not familiar widi the way
environmental impact statements can be "tiered"
under the NEPA regulations, so that issues are
examined in detail at the stage that decisions on
them are being made. See Section 1508.28 of
the regulations. For example, if a proposed
program is under review, it is possible that site
specific actions are not yet proposed. In such a
case, these actions are not addressed in the EIS
on the program, but are reserved for a later tier
of analysis. If tiering is being used, this concept
must be made clear at the outset of any scoping
meeting, so that participants do not concentrate
on issues that are not going to be addressed at
this time. If you can specify when these other
issues will be addressed it will be easier to
convince people to focus on the matters at hand.
1.5.2-14
-------
4. Scoping for unusual programs.
One interesting scoping case involved proposed
changes in the Endangered Species Program.
Among the impacts to be examined were the
effects of this conservation program on user
activities such as mining, hunting, and timber
harvest, instead of the other way around.
Because of this reverse twist in the impacts to be
analyzed, some participants had difficulty
focusing on useful issues. Apparently, if the
subject of the EIS is unusual, it will be even
harder than normal for scoping participants to
grasp what is expected of them.
In the case of the Endangered Species Program
EIS, the agency planned an intensive 3 day
scoping session, successfully involved the
participants, and reached accord on several
issues that would be important for the future
implementation of the program. But the
participants were unable to focus on impacts and
program alternatives for the EIS. We suggest
that if the intensive session had been broken up
into 2 or 3 meetings separated by days or weeks,
the participants might have been able to get used
to the new way of thinking required, and thereby
to participate more productively. Programmatic
proposals are often harder to deal with in a
scoping context than site specific projects. Thus
extra care should be taken in explaining the
goals of the proposal and in making the
information available well hi advance of any
meetings.
D. Lead and Cooperating Agencies.
Some problems with scoping revolve around the
relationship between lead and cooperating
agencies. Some agencies are still uncomfortable
with these roles. The NEPA regulations, and
the 40 Questions and Answers about the NEPA
Regulations, 46 Fed. Reg. 18026, (March 23,
1981) describe in detail the way agencies are
now asked to cooperate on environmental
analyses. (See Questions 9,14, and 30.) We will
focus here on the early phase of that
cooperation.
It is important for the lead agency to be as
specific as possible with the cooperating
agencies. Tell them what you want them to
contribute during scoping: environmental
impacts and alternatives. Some agencies still do
not understand the purpose of scoping.
Be sure to contact and involve representatives of
the cooperating agencies who are responsible for
NEPA-related functions. The lead agency will
need to contact staff of the cooperating agencies
who can both help to identify issues and
alternatives and commit resources to a study,
agree to a schedule for EIS preparation, or
approve a list of issues as sufficient. In some
agencies that will be at the district or state office
level (e.g., Corps of Engineers, Bureau of Land
Management, and Soil Conservation Service) for
all but exceptional cases. In other agencies you
must go to regional offices for scoping
comments and commitments (e.g., EPA, Fish
and Wildlife Service, Water and Power
Resources Service). In still others, the field
offices do not have NEPA responsibilities or
expertise and you will deal directly with
headquarters (e.g., Federal Energy Regulatory
Commission, Interstate Commerce Commission).
In all cases you are looking for the office that
can give you the answers you need. So keep
trying until you find the organizational level of
the cooperating agency that can give you useful
information and that has the authority to make
commitments.
As stated in 40 Questions and Answers about the
NEPA Regulations, the lead agency has the
ultimate responsibility for the content of the EIS,
but if it leaves out a significant issue or ignores
the advice and expertise of the cooperating
agency, the EIS may be found later to be
inadequate. (46 Fed. Reg. 18030, Question
14b.) At the same time, the cooperating agency
will be concerned that the EIS contain material
sufficient to satisfy its decisionmaking needs.
1.5.2-15
-------
Thus, both agencies have a stake in producing a
document of. good quality. The cooperating
agencies should be encouraged not only to
participate in scoping but also to review the
decisions made by the lead agency about what to
include in the EIS. Lead agencies should allow
any information needed by a cooperating agency
to be included, and any issues of concern to the
cooperating agency should be covered, but it
usually will have to be at the expense of the
Cooperating agency.
Cooperating agencies have at least as great a
need as the general public for advance
Information on a proposal before any scoping
tikes place. Agencies have reported to us that
information from the lead agency is often too
sketchy or conies tod late for informed
participation. Lead agencies must clearly explain
to all cooperating agencies what the proposed
kction is conceived to be at this time, and what
present alternatives and issues the lead agency
sees, before expecting other agencies to devote
time and money to a scoping session. Informal
contacts among the agencies before scoping gets
underway are valuable to establish what the
cooperating agencies will need for productive
scoping to take place.
Some agencies will be called upon to be
cooperators more frequently than others, and
they may lack the resources to respond to the
numerous requests. The NEPA regulations
permit agencies without jurisdiction by law (i.e.,
no approval authority over the proposal) to
decline the cooperating agency role. (Section
1501.6(c)). But agencies that do have
jurisdiction by law cannot opt out entirely and
may have to reduce their cooperating effort
devoted to each EIS. (See Section 1501.6(c) and
40 Questions and Answers about the NEPA
Regulations, 46 Fed. Reg. 18030, Question
14a.) Thus, cooperators would be greatly aided
by a priority list from the lead agency showing
which proposals most need their help. This will
lead to a more efficient allocation of resources.
Some cooperating agencies are still holding back
at the scoping stage in order to retain a critical
position for later in the process. They either
avoid the scoping sessions or fail to contribute,
and then raise objections in comments on the
draft EIS. We cannot emphasize enough that the
whole point of scoping is to avoid this situation.
As we stated in 40 Questions and Answers about
the NEPA Regulations, "if the new alternative
[or other issue] was not raised by the
commentator during scoping, but could have
been, commentors may find that they are
unpersuasive In their efforts to have their
suggested alternative analyzed in detail by the
[lead] agency." (46 Fed. Req. 18035, Question
29b.)
III. Advice for Public Participants
Scoping is a new opportunity for you to enter
the earliest phase of the decisionmaking process
on proposals that affect you. Through this
process you have access to public officials
before decisions are made and the right to
explain your objections and concerns. But this
opportunity carries with it a new responsibility.
No longer may individuals hang back until the
process is almost complete and then spring forth
with a significant issue or alternative that might
have been raised earlier. You are now part of
the review process, and your role is to inform
the responsible agencies of the potential impacts
that should be studied, the problems a proposal
may cause that you foresee, and the alternatives
and mitigating measures that offer promise.
As noted above, and in 40 Questions and
Answers, no longer will a comment raised for
the first time after the draft EIS is finished be
accorded the same serious consideration it would
otherwise have merited if the issue had been
raised during scoping. Thus you have a
responsibility to come forward early with known
issues.
In return, you get the chance to meet the
responsible officials and to make the case for
1.5.2-16
-------
your alternative before they are committed to a
course of action. To a surprising degree this
avenue has been found to yield satisfactory
results. There's no guarantee, of course, but
when the alternative you suggest is really better,
it is often hard for a decisionmaker to resist.
There are several problems that commonly arise
that public participants should be aware of:
A. Public input is often only negative
The optimal timing of scoping within the NEPA
process is difficult to judge. On the one hand, as
explained above (Section II.B.l.), if it is
attempted too early, the agency cannot explain
what it has in mind and informed participation
will be impossible. On the other, if it is delayed,
the public may find that significant decisions are
already made, and their comments may be
discounted or will be too late to change the
project. Some agencies have found themselves in
a tactical cross-fire when public criticism arises
before they can even define their proposal
sufficiently to see whether they have a
worthwhile plan. Understandably, they would be
reluctant after such an experience to invite public
criticism early in the planning process through
open scoping. But it is in your interest to
encourage agencies to come out with proposals
in the early stage because that enhances the
possibility of your comments being used. Thus
public participants in scoping should reduce the
emotion level wherever possible and use the
opportunity to make thoughtful, rational
presentations on impacts and alternatives.
Polarizing over issues too early hurts all parties.
If agencies get positive and useful public
responses from the scoping process, they will
more frequently come forward with proposals
early enough so that they can be materially
improved by your suggestions.
B. Issues are too broad
The issues that participants tend to identify
during scoping are much too broad to be useful
for analytical purposes. For example, "cultural
impacts" - what does this mean? What precisely
are the impacts that should be examined? When
the EIS preparers encounter a comment as vague
as this they will have to make their own
judgment about what you meant, and you may
find that your issues are not covered. Thus, you
should refine the broad general topics, and
specify which issues need evaluation and
analysis.
C. Impacts are not identified
Similarly, people (including agency staff)
frequently identify "causes" as issues but fail to
identify the principal "effects" that the EIS
should evaluate in depth. For example, oil and
gas development is a cause of many impacts.
Simply listing this generic category is of little
help. You must go beyond the obvious causes to
the specific effects that are of concern. If you
want scoping to be seen as more than just
another public meeting, you will need to put in
extra work.
IV. Brief Points For Applicants.
Scoping can be an invaluable part of your early
project planning. Your main interest is in getting
a proposal through the review process. This
interest is best advanced by finding out early
where the problems with the proposal are, who
the affected parties are, and where
accommodations can be made. Scoping is an
ideal meeting place for all the interest groups if
you have not already contacted them. In several
cases, we found that the compromises made at
this stage allowed a project to move efficiently
through the permitting process virtually
unopposed.
The NEPA regulations place an affirmative
obligation on agencies to "provide for cases
where actions are planned by private applicants"
so that designated staff are available to consult
with the applicants, to advise applicants of
1.5.2-17
-------
information that will be required during review,
and to insure that the NEPA process commences
at the earliest possible time. (Section 1501.2(d)).
This section of the regulations is intended to
ensure that environmental factors are considered
at an early stage in the applicant's planning
process. (See 40 Questions and Answers about
tne NEPA Regulations, 46 Fed. Reg. 18028,
Questions 8 and 9.)
Applicants should take advantage of this
requirement in the regulations by approaching
the agencies early to consult on alternatives,
mitigation requirements, and the agency's
information needs. This early contact with the
agency can facilitate a prompt initiation of the
scoping process in cases where an EIS will be
prepared. You will need to furnish sufficient
mformatipn about your proposal to enable the
lead agency to formulate a coherent presentation
for cooperating agencies and the public. But
don't wait until your choices are all made and
the alternatives have been eliminated. (Section
1506.1).
During scoping, be sure to attend any of the
public meetings unless the agency is dividing
groups by interest affiliation. You will be able to
answer any questions about the proposal, and
even more important, you will be able to hear
the objections raised, and find out what the real
concerns of the public are. This is, of course,
vital information for future negotiations with the
affected parties.
1.5:2-18
-------
12-91
ENVIRONMENTAL LAW REPORTER
NEWS & ANALYSIS
21 ELK iu/ui
ARTICLES
Defining the Scope of Alternatives in an EIS After Citizens
Against Burlington
by Peter J. Kitsch and Conrad M. Rippy
Editors' Summary: NEPA requires federal agencies to prepare ElSsfor major
federal actions that significantly affect the quality of the human environment.
EISs must discuss all reasonable alternatives to the proposed action. The
discussion of alternatives is the heart often EIS. In Citizens Against Burlington,
Inc. v. Busey, the D.C. Circuit appears to have narrowed the scope of alter-
natives that a federal agency must consider when it issues a permit or other
federal approval ThisArrittt analyzes the case and proposes an interpretation
that would reconcile Citizens Against Burlington with CEQ regulations and,
NEPA case law on the seopeof alternatives.
In the recent case of Citizens Against Burlington, Inc. v.
Busey,' the D.C. Circuit interpreted the National Envi-
ronmental Policy Act (NEPA)2 and its requirement that
federal agencies, when preparing an environmental impact
statement (EIS), must consider all reasonable "alternatives
to the proposed action."3 On its surface, the opinion by
Circuit Court Judge Clarence Thomas* appears to reject
both NEPA regulations and longstanding case law on the
proper scope of alternatives that an agency must consider
in an EIS. The opinion seems to sanction a narrower scope
of alternatives when a federal agency issues a permit or
other federal approval than when a federal agency is the
Peter J. Kirsch is an attorney with Cutler &. Stanfield in Washington,
D.C. His practice specializes in federal environmental and land use law
and complex public sector negotiations. Conrad M. Rippy is a third-year
law student at the University of Virginia where he is Notes Editor of the
Virginia Law Review.
1. 938 F.2d 190. 21 ELR 21142 (D.C. Cir. 1991).
2. 42 U.S.C. §|4321-4370a, ELR STAT. NEPA 001-01Z
3. NEPA §102(2)(C)(iii), 42 U.S.C. §4332(2)(C)(iii), ELR STAT.
NEPA 003.
4. On October 12.1991, the Senate confirmed Clarence Thomas as an
Associate Justice of the U.S. Supreme Court
Judge Thomas has not taken an overly friendly view of environ-
mental concerns in the past. For example, in Cross-Sound Ferry
. Services. Inc. v. Interstate Commerce Comm'n, 934 F.2d 327 (D.C.
Cir. 1991). Judge Thomas concurred in a judgment denying a. NEPA
claim. Moreover, he would have denied standing to the plaintiff,
arguing, contrary to the majority, that the national transportation
policy set forth at 49 U.S.C. §10101 could not be interpreted to
encompass environmental factors. Judge Thomas contended that
statutory language mandating efficient transportation "surely did
not mean to ... promote ecological consciousness-raising" or any
factors other than "the economics of transportation." Id. at 338.
Judge Thomas thus seems unwilling to consider environmental pro-
tection as an element of a cost-benefit equation.
Although he has not written any other significant environmental
1.5.3-1
principal proponent of a project. This Article explores the
court's reasoning and proposes an interpretation of the case
that reconciles the apparent conflict between Citizens
Against Burlington and 20 years of case law defining the
proper scope of alternatives in an EIS.
NEPA requires that federal agencies prepare an EIS
on "major Federal actions significantly affecting the qual-
ity of the human environment."5 The regulations of the
Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ), which form
the foundation for all other federal regulations under
opinions. Judge Thomas' basic indifference towards environmental
claims appears in other environmental cases in which he has sided
with the majority in denying claims based on federal environmental
laws. See. e.g.. National Wildlife Fed'n v. United States Envtl.
Protection Agency, 925 F.2d 470. 21 ELR 20565 (D.C. Cir. 1991)
(denying petition for review of a decision by EPA allowing states,
for limited time periods, not to comply with the Safe Drinking Water
Act); Tongass Conservation Soc'y v. Cheney. 924 F.2d 1137. 2!
ELR 20558 (D.C. Cir. 1991) (upholding as adequate the considera-
tion of a range of alternatives in an EIS prepared by the Department
of Defense for siting of a submarine base); Macht v. Skinner. 916
F.2d 13, 21 ELR 20.004 (D.C. Cir. 1990) (holding that neither
federal funding for an EIS for a light rail vehicle project otherwise
entirely funded by the state of Maryland nor Army Corps of Engi-
neers issuance of a wetlands permit for a "negligible" part of the
project constitutes major federal action for the purposes of NEPA
or §4(f) of the. Transportation Act); Hazardous Waste Treatment
Council v. United States Envtl. Protection Agency, 910 F.2d 974,
20 ELR 21359 (D.C. Cir. 1990) (denying a petition for review of
a Resource Conservation and Recovery Act "no migration" haz-
ardous waste disposal exemption). But see Linemaster Switch Corp.
v. United States Envtl. Protection Agency, 938 F.2d 1299, 21,ELR
21359 (D.C. Cir. 1991) (denying plaintiffs* petition for review ol
decision by EPA to add hazardous waste sites owned by plaintiff:
to the national priorities list under the Comprehensive Environment!
Response, Compensation, and Liability Act).
5. NEPA §102(2)(C). §4332(2)(C). ELR STAT. NEPA 003.
-------
21 ELR 10702
ENVIRONMENTAL LAW REPORTER
12-91
;t
NEPA, * require that an EIS contain, among other ele-
ments, a statement of the purpose of and need for the
action,' and a discussion of alternatives to the proposed
action. * It is these two requirements that were at issue
in Citizens Against Burlington.
The requirement to analyze alternatives to a proposed
project is the heart of NEPA. It is absolutely essential that
an EIS contain "detailed and careful" analysis of the relative
merits and demerits of the proposed action arid proposed
alternatives, a requirement which courts have characterized
as the "linchpin" of an EIS.9
(U " H .
I . i ' ;,»
Citizens Against Burlington v. Busey
iii , ',
••1 " . .-;: ••;:• i... „ . ,• • *' • • ; ,
Background of Toledo Airport Expansion EIS
> ' • "..'i" .?' .. :" : :• , „: •
Citizens Against Burlington arose from the approval by
the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) of plans to
expand Toledo Express Airport near Toledo. Ohio. The
Toledo-Lucas County Port Authority sought to expand
Toledo Express Airport to accommodate plans by Burl-
ington Air Express to move its air cargo operation to
Toledo from Fort Wayne, Indiana. Toledo predicted that
Burlington's move would bring more than 1,000 jobs to
the city's depressed economy. As an incentive to attract
Burlington, the Port Authority proposed to enhance
Toledo Express Airport by constructing new facilities
and lengthening a runway and taxi ways at the airport, all
of which required FAA approval. The Port Authority also
sought FAA funding for the expansion project.
One of the first steps in seeking FAA approval or funding
is the preparation of the required NEPA documentation on
the proposal. As required by FAA regulations,10 the Toledo
Port Authority prepared an environmental assessment,"
which the FAA converted into an environmental impact
statement." The draft EIS generated considerable contro-
versy from both the public and the Environmental Protection
Agency." In its final EIS, under a subhead entitied "Need
for the Proposed Federal Action." the FAA explained that;
6. 40 C.F.R. §1207.1 (requiring all fedenl agencies to comply with
CEQ regulations).
7."fl §i50ll3.
8. Ai §1502.14.
9. l>Satural Resources Defense Council. Inc. v. CaUaway, 524 F.2d 79,
92, 5 ELR 20640, 20647 (2d Cir. 1975) (quoting Monroe County
ConsMvanon Spc'y. Inc. v. Volpe. 472 R2d 693, 697-98, 3 ELR
20006,20607 (2d Cir. 1972)).
10. Scf, FED. AVIATION ADMIN.; U.S DEP'T OF TRANSP., ORDER
5jg.SjD.4A. Aixporr ENyiloNMENTAL HANDBOOK (1985) thereinaf-
ter FAA ORDER S050.4A]; FED. AVIATION ADMIN., US. DEP'T
OF TRANSP., ORDER 1050.ID, POLICIES AND PROCEDURES FOR
CONSIDERING ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS (1986).
11. FAA ORDER 5050.4A. supra note 10, para. 43 et itq.
12. Id. at para. 72 er seq.
13. 4* 55 Fed. Reg. 8983 (fer. 9, 1990) (EPA comments finding that
draft environmental impact statement was "inadequate to fully assess
all environmental impacts and therefore does not meet the purpose
and intent of NEPA" and that the project was "environmentally
iSrisatisfactory"). EPA comments on the draft EIS resulted in 10
much imeragcncy controversy that EPA was able to pressure the
FAA into signing a letter agreement over the manner in which
impacts for future airport expansions would be analyzed. Letter
from Barry Lambert Harris. Deputy Administrator, Federal Aviation
Administration, to F. Henry Habicht III, Deputy Administrator, 1
Environmental Protection Agency (June 15, 1990).
The purpose and need for this action lies in FAA's
responsibility to review the airport design and runway
configuration with respect to its safety, efficiency and
utility within the national airspace system and its envi-
ronmental impact on the surrounding area.
The key item in this regard is the need for extending
Runway 7-25 to provide safe and adequate length
Another purpose and need for the proposed Federal
action is that FAA has a statutory mandate to facilitate
the establishment of air cargo hubs "
The FAA reviewed and dismissed several alternatives
before concluding that it had to consider in depth the en-
vironmental impacts of only two alternatives: the approval
of the airport expansion plan as proposed by Burlington
and the Port Authority, and the no-action alternative. The
FAA explained that
[w]ith respect to this proposal for establishment of MI air
cargo hub at Toledo Express Airport, the role of the FAA
in selecting alternatives is limited.... The FAA has
verified the need for the proposed project The FAA
has further reviewed the site selection process that Burl-
ington began in 1987..."
Following issuance of the EIS, the FAA approved the
proposed airport expansion in July 1990."
Judge Thomas's Opinion on Review of the EIS
The petidoners in Citizens Against Burlington sought re-
view of the FAA's decision approving the Toledo expansio'/1
plan on the grounds that the EIS impermissibly discussed
only the alternatives of approving the plan as proposed by
the Port Authority and the no-action alternative. Petitioners
argued that the FAA should have considered other alterna-
tives in detail, including the alternative of expanding Burl-
ington Air Express operations at its existing Fort Wayne,
Indiana, facility." Petitioners also raised a number of issues
relating to the adequacy of the EIS discussion of noise
impacts, to the scope of analysis required for compliance
with §4(f) of the Department of Transportation Act" and
§509(b)(5) of the Airport and Airway Improvement Act of
1982," and relating to NEPA conflict-of-interest rules,20
which are beyond the scope of this Article.
14. FED. AVIATION ADMIN., U.S. DEP'T OF TRANSP.. FINAL ENVI-
RONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT ON ESTABLISHMENT OF AIR
CARGO HUB. TOLEDO EXPRESS AIRPORT, TOLEDO, OHIO, at 1-3
(May 11, 1990) [hereinafter TOLEDO EIS].
15. Id. at 2-1.
. 16. FED. AVIATION ADMIN., GREAT LAKES REGION, U.S. DEP'T OF
TRANSP., RECORD OF DECISION FOR TOLEDO EXPRESS AIRPORT,
TOLEDO OHIO (July 12, 1990).
17. Brief for Petitioners, On Petition for review of a Decision of the
Federal Aviation Administration at 1, Citizens Against Burlington.
Inc. v. Busey, 938 F.2d 190, 21 ELR 21142 (D.C. Cir. 1991)
[hereinafter Pet. Br.].
18. Section 4(f) of the Transportation Act of 1966 prohibits the FAA
from approving any project that uses protected parks, recreation or
wildlife areas, or historic structures unless there is no prudent an
feasible alternative to using the land and the ProJect'"'Jo ,?V
possible planning to mitigate for harm to protected lands. 49 U.i.
§303(c).
19. The Airport and Airway Improvement Act is similar in language to
§4(f) of the Transportation Act but broader in scope in that it prohibits
53-2 FAA funding of a airport expansion project that may nave a
significant impact" on any environmental factor unless no feasible
-------
12-91
NEWS &. ANALYSIS
1\ ELR 10103
For the present discussion, it is important to understand
the issues on review as articulated in petitioners' brief. The
principal issue was the scope of alternatives in the EIS:
Whether the FAA has violated NEPA by relying on an
environmental impact statement which (a) fails to ana-
lyze the continuation of Burlington's operations in Ft.
Wayne even though this is a feasible and reasonable
alternative. ..21
Petitioners argued at length that the FAA should have
considered the alternative that the Burlington Air Express
facility would remain at Ft. Wayne, Indiana,n and criticized
the agency's assertion that legally it was limited in its action
to accepting or rejecting Toledo's application.23
The p.C. Circuit panel, with Judge James Buckley
dissenting, upheld the scope of alternatives in the EIS.
Writing for the majority, Judge Clarence Thomas under-
took a wide-ranging discussion of an agency's obligations
under NEPA to consider alternatives in an EIS.24 Noting
that the term "alternatives" as used in NEPA is not
self-defining,v Judge Thomas observed that "[i]f... the
consideration of alternatives is to inform both the public
and the agency decisionmaker, the discussion must be
moored to 'some notion of feasibility.'" M Judge Thomas
explained that an alternative is reasonable—and must,
therefore, be analyzed in an EIS—"if it will bring about
the ends of the federal action."21 In other words, he
concluded, "[t]he goals of an action delimit the universe
of the action's reasonable alternatives."2'
Court's Definition of Goals of Federal Action
The court started by explaining its standard of review: "the
agency... bears the responsibility for defining at the outset
the objectives of an action," " and the court will ''uphold
an agency's definition of objectives so long as the objectives
that the agency chooses are reasonable." x Nevertheless,
an agency may not define the objectives of its action in
terms so unreasonably narrow that only one alternative
. . . would accomplish the goals of the agency's ac-
tion. ... Nor may an agency frame its goals in terms so
unreasonably broad that an infinite number of alterna-
tives would accomplish those goals..."
and prudent alternatives exist and "all reasonable steps have been
taken to minimize" environmental impacts. 49 U.S.C. app.
52208(bX5). This statute effectively requires the FAA to implement
all mitigation measures articulated in an EIS.
20. See 40 C.F.R. J1506.S(c) (regulations regarding conflict-of-interest
by preparer of EISs).
21. Pet. Br., supra note 17, at 1.
22. Id. at 23-25.
23. Id. at 26-27.
24. See supra note 4.
25. 938 F.2d 190.194,21 ELR 21142.21144 (D.C. Cir. 1991) (quoting
Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Corp. v. Natural Resources Defense
Council, Inc.. 435 U.S. 519, 8 ELR 20288 (1978)).
26. Id. at 195. 21 ELR at 21145 (footnote and citation omitted).
27. Id.
28. Id. (emphasis added).
29. Id. at 195-96. 21 ELR at 21145.
30, Id. at 196. 21 ELR at 21145.
31. Id. (citing City of New York v. United States Dep't of Transp., 715
1.5.3-3
Paraphrasing the EIS, the court explained how an agency
should determine its "goals" and "objectives" when the
agency is asked to approve an application by a nonfederal
party: an "agency should take into account the needs and
goals of the parties involved in the application." " The court
did not explain the relationship between an applicant's
"needs and goals" and the corresponding federal "goals"
and "objectives," though the context suggests that the court
used the terms interchangeably.
The court next turned to an examination of how the FAA
set its "goals" for the Toledo airport expansion. Observing
that Congress has told the FAA to "nurture aspiring cargo
hubs," " Judge Thomas concluded that it was proper for
the FAA to define its goal with reference to "the Port
Authority's reasons for wanting a cargo hub in Toledo," -u
among which was the Port Authority's hope that a cargo
hub "will lead to a renaissance in the Toledo metropolitan
region." M Consequently, the court found that
the FAA defined the goal for its action as helping to
launch a new cargo hub in Toledo and thereby helping to
fuel the Toledo economy. The agency then eliminated
from detailed discussion the alternatives that would not
accomplish this goal.M
The court held that the FAA acted properly in its decision
to evaluate the "environmental impacts of the only proposal
that might reasonably accomplish that goal—approving the
construction and operation of a cargo hub at Toledo Ex-
press." r Although the court found that an essential "goal"
was the FAA's desire to help "fuel the Toledo economy."
the source of this finding is troubling. Neither the FAA nor
the parties in their briefs articulated economic growth as a
consideration. The only discussion of economic growth in
the EIS was as a beneficial impact of the proposed action.3*
Although the court discussed at length the FAA's "goals"
and its "objectives" (and apparently uses both terms inter-
changeably), neither term is used in the EIS. Nor did the
EIS anywhere explain that the goal of the project was either
a new cargo hub at Toledo Express Airport or the rejuve-
nation of the Toledo economy. For example, the EIS refers
to the "purpose and need for this action," to the "need for
extending" a runway, to the statutory mandate as setting
"[ajnother purpose and need for the proposed Federal ac-
tion," and to the proposed federal action as "fulfilling this
mandate."39 Notwithstanding his view that it would be
improper for the court itself to define the agency's goals, ^
Judge Thomas did precisely that in order to conclude that
F.2d 732,13 ELR 20823 (2d Cir. 1983), cert, denied. 465 U.S. 1055
(1984)).
32. 938 FOd at 196. 21 ELR at 21145: Toledo EIS, supra note 14, at
2-1 ("the Federal government's consideration of alternatives may
accord substantial weight to the preferences of the applicant and/or
sponsor").
33. 938F.2dat 197,21 ELR at 21146 (citing 49 U.S.C. app. §2201(aX7),
(11)).
34. Id.
35. Id. at 198, 21 ELR at 21146.
36. Id..
37. Id.
38. TOLEDO EIS, supra note 14, at 1-4, 2-17.
39. Id. at 1-3, 1-4.
40. 938 F.2d at 199, 21 ELR at 21147.
-------
21 ELR 10704
ENVIRONMENTAL LAW REPORTER
12-31
the FAA's goal in Toledo was to help fuel the Toledo
econorn'y by launching a cargo hub at its airport. *'
Adequacy o/Discussion of Alternatives
Haying determined the agency's goals, the court proceeded
to explore whether the scope of alternatives in the EIS
appropriately reflected those goals. It concluded that the
FAA acted properly by evaluating the impacts only of the
proposal submitted by the Port Authority and by excluding
any other potential alternative. Strictly relying on the lan-
guage found in NEPA, *2 the court explained that an agency
need examine only alternatives to the federal action, not
alternatives to the entire proposed project.43 Because a
federal permitting agency like the FAA often is limited
simply to granting or denying a permit, and has no sub-
stantive role in shaping the applicant's project. Judge Tho-
mas concluded that an EIS need not examine alternatives
to an applicant's proposal that lie outside the purview of
the federal involvement.44
Citing Van Abbema v. Fomell^ the petitioners argued
that the scope of alternatives must be defined as "alternative
means to accomplish the general goal of an action; it is not
an evaluation of the alternative means by which a particular
applicant can reach his goals,"45 The court explicitly re-
jected the Van Abbema reference to "general goals," be-
cause of the difficulty of determining "how to distinguish
general goals from specific ones and just who does the
distinguishing."47 Arguing that Van Abbema implies that
the court should do this distinguishing. Judge Thomas dis-
agreed that this is a proper role for either the court or the
permitting agency.
An agency cannot redefine the goals of the proposal that
arouses the call for action; it must evaluate alternative
ways of achieving its goals, shaped by the application at
issue and by the function that the agency plays in the
decisional process. Congress did expect agencies to con-
sider an applicant's wants when the agency formulates
the goals of its own proposed action.4*
Wjthput citing any authority for the proposition. Judge
Thomas concluded that the scope of alternatives in an EIS—
just like the definition of the agency's goals—properly
should depend on the "function that the agency plays in
the decisional process."49 With respect to such airport ex-
pansions as proposed at Toledo, the FAA's function gen-
erally is to "nurture aspiring cargo hubs" but not to "de-
termine the siting of the nation's airports." * Consequently,
the court concluded that the FAA had no business examining
alternative airport locations for the Burlington Air Express
41. See id. K 198, 21 ELR at 21146.
42. NEPA §102(2X0, 42 U.S.C. §4332(2)(C). ELR STAT. NEPA 003
(an agency must examine "alternatives to the proposed action").
43. 938 F.2d at 199, 21 ELR at 21147.
44. k ' ;
45. 807 F.2d 633. 17 ELR-10429 (7th Cir. 1986).
46. Id. at 638. 17 ELR at 20432 (emphasis in original); Pet. Br., supra
note 17. at 21-22.
47. 938 F.2d at 199, 21 ELR at 21147.
48. Id. (emphasis in original).
49. Id. 1-5.3
50. Id. at 197, 21 ELR at 21146.
• 'I ! ' ., ' 'I
cargo hub, once Burlington made clear its preference for
the Toledo location.
Judge Buckley's Dissent
Judge James Buckley dissented in part from the majority
opinion, on the grounds that the FAA impermissibly had
limited the alternatives in the EIS to the single alternative
in which Burlington Air Express had expressed an inter-
est. He saw a disparity between the majority view that
"would limit consideration of alternatives to those avail-
able" to the Toledo Port Authority,5l and the FAA's view
that it had to consider any reasonable alternative that was
available to either the Port Authority or Burlington Air
Express, the real beneficiary of the project.sz The dissent
faulted the FAA and the majority for their unquestioning
acceptance of assertions by both the Toledo Port Author-
ity and Burlington Air Express that Toledo Express Air-
port was the only airport suitable for the project. Instead
of testing these assertions, the FAA "simply accepted
Burlington's 'Toledo-or-bust' position," K notwithstand-
ing its obligation under NEPA to "exercise a degree of
skepticism in dealing with self-serving statements from
a prime beneficiary of the project." **
As Judge Buckley explained, the majority opinion leaves
the scope of an EIS in the hands of the beneficiary of a
federally permitted project. If the beneficiary claims that
one and only one project alternative is acceptable, then the
agency's EIS need only examine that proposal and th
no-action alternative.x
Implications of the Citizens Against Burlington Case
The plain language of Citizens Against Burlington suggests
two potentially far-reaching consequences. First, the court
appears to have held that an agency may accept the "needs
and goals" of a nonfederal applicant as the defining criteria
for its own "goals" or "objectives." Second, since the court
says that the range of alternatives properly is defined by
the federal agency's "goals" or "objectives," the scope of
alternatives in an EIS also should be defined by the appli-
cant's desires and the nature of the agency's role in the
decisionmaking process.
If these two propositions were accepted as the holdings
of Citizens Against Burlington, they would portend a
situation in which any applicant for a federal permit could
limit NEPA analysis to consideration of only the project
and no-project alternatives, merely by informing the per-
mitting agency that it would not consider modifications
to its project. Either proposition effectively eviscerates
51. Id. at 207, 21 ELR at 21151.
52. Id. at 208, 21 ELR at 21152 ("Burlington makes the demands that
define the project; Toledo enjoys the benefits that result").
53. Id.
54. Id. at 209,21 ELR at 21153. See Van Abbema v. Fomell, 807 F." '
633,642, 17 ELR 20429, 20434 (7th Cir. 1986) (criticizing agei f
for its "blind reliance" on information submitted by an applicant
Trinity Episcopal School Corp. v. Romney. 523 F.2d 88,94,5 ELI
20497, 20500 (2d Cir. 1975) (agency must determine for itself the
-4 availability of alternatives).
55. 938 F.2d at 209. 21 ELR at 21153.
-------
12-91
NEWS &.
the alternatives requirement in any EIS for a federally
permitted action.5i
Acceptance of either proposition means throwing to the
wind almost 20 years of NEPA case law and CEQ guidance
in three fundamental respects. First, NEPA requires an
agency to examine all "reasonable" alternatives, without
reference to the agency's jurisdiction to implement the al-
ternative. " Second, both CEQ and the case law consistently
have held that the scope of alternatives in an EIS must
reflect only technical, economic, and common sense prac-
ticability.5I Third, both the regulations and case law are
highly critical of any EIS that relies on information and
analysis provided by an applicant and that has not been
evaluated independently by the federal agency. *
56. Because the evaluation of alternatives is the "bean" of any envi-
ronmental impact statement, 40 C.F.R. §1502.14, and is the "linch-
pin" of its authority, Monroe County Conservation Council, Inc. v.
Volpe, 472 F.2d 693.697-98, 3 ELR 20006.20007 (2d Cir. 1972).
it is unclear how NEPA is to continue to fulfill its mission as
described by Congress: to "assure for all Americans safe, healthful,
productive, and aesthetically and culturally pleasing surroundings."
NEPA §101(b)(2), 42 U.S.C. §4331(b)(2). ELR STAT. 003.
57. 40 C.F.R. § 1502.14
-------
21 ELR 10706
ENVIRONMENTAL LAW REPORTER
action for NEPA purposes; alternatives to the entire project
must be examined.u
Fourth, while the strict language of NEPA does not offer
a benchmark for determining "reasonable alternatives,"
CEQ regulations and guidance set forth such standards.
Reasonable alternatives are those that are "practical or
feasible from the technical and economic standpoint and
using common sense." ** Because an agency's responsibili-
ties are bounded by some notion of feasibility, an agency
need not cljscuss "purely conjectural possibilities.""
These four definitions set the foundation for a theory on
how the elements of an EIS are interconnected. The CEQ
requires that the framework for the scope of alternatives be
tl^e purpose and need for the proposed action. An EIS must
contain a statement of the purpose and need:
The statement shall briefly specify the underlying
purpose and need to which the agency is responding
in proposing the alternatives including the proposed
' ,* action,,**
Just as practicality and feasibility determine whether an
alternative is reasonable, both CEQ regulations and case
law recognize that the statement of need defines the scope
of alternajlyes in an EIS. *7 In other words, the broader the
;, s|itemenfof "need, the greater the range of alternatives.
Beyond tnis, neither the statute nor the CEQ regulations
provides much assistance.
A careful distinction between "purpose" and "need" wUl
avoid much of the confusing terminology which cases like
Citizens Against Burlington have fostered. ** A need is the
lack of something requisite, desirable, or useful or a con-
dition requiring relief.M Purpose is defined as an object or
ejid to be achieved.70 Consequently, the two terms should
|je interpreted as complementary. The EIS discussion of
purpose and need should demonstrate that the purpose of
jf proposed federal action is to attain or achieve at least part
of the underlying need for the proposed action.
The statements of purpose and need for the proposed
action each play a different role. The statement of need
should be an objective description of the reason that the
See National Forest Preservation Group v. Butz, 485 F.2d 408, 3
ELR 20783 (9th Cir. 1973) (a private project that is enabled by a
federal action becomes the proposed action for NEPA purposes);
Friends of the Earth. Inc. v. Coleman, 518 F.2d 323.5 ELR 20428
(9th Cir. 1975) (nonfederal project elements that are "closely inter-
woven" with the federal action must be considered as pan of the
proposed action).
See 48 CF.R. § 1502,14; FORTY QUESTIONS, supra note 57. at Q. 2a.
CEQ MEMORANDUM ON GUIDANCE, supra note 61,48 Fed. Reg.
at 34267. ELR ADMIN. MATERIALS at 35048.
40 OFJ^i 1502.13.'^'
Id, §1502.14;"seeRoosevelt Campobello Int'l Park Comm'n v. U.S.
EPA, 684 F.2d 1041, 1047, 12 ELR 20903, 20905 (1st Cir. 1982).
See also City of New York v. Dept. of Transportation, 715 F.2d
732. 743, 13 ELR 20823. 20827 (2d Cir. 1983) ("[t]he scope of
alternatives to be considered is a function of how narrowly or broadly
one views the objective of an agency's proposed action"); Trout
Unlimited v. Morton. 509 F.2d 1276. 1286. 5 ELR 20151, 20155
(9th Cir. 1974) (alternatives must be "reasonably related" to state-
mentof purpose).
Fora general discussion of the distinction between "purpose" and
"need" in the NEPA context, see Schmitt. The Statement of Un-
derlying Need Defines the Range of Alternatives in Environmental
Documents. 18 ENVTL. L. 371 (1988).
63.
64.
65.
66.
67.
68.
69.
70.
WEBSTER'S NINTH NEW COLLEGIATE DICTIONA*Y.
Id.
1.5.3-6
project (not necessarily the federal action) is being pur-
sued. 71 An EIS must include alternative methods of satis-
fying the need, including any reasonable alternative means
that lie outside the jurisdiction of the federal agency. An
adequate discussion of alternatives will respond fully to the
statement of need.n
The statement of purpose follows from the statement of
need. It should be seen as the tool for understanding why
the federal agency has selected the preferred alternative
from among the alternative ways of meeting the need. Un-
like the objective statement of need, the statement of purpose
can be subjective, should refer to an agency's mission, and
should reflect the limits on an agency's statutory authority.
The statement of purpose further should explain how the
proposed federal action satisfies the need and should justify
the decision to choose the preferred alternative. Since an
EIS must be prepared only for a major federal action, the
statement of purpose should explain the nature of the federal
action and the relationship between the project and the
federal action.
This theory of the meaning of purpose and need suggests
that need must be defined first, framing and delimiting the
discussion of alternatives in an EIS. When need and purpose
are fused into a single statement—as in the past they fre-
quently have been—it becomes possible for an agency to
define the need for a project as the agency's purpose.
An example proves the point Suppose an area lacks ade-
quate electricity capacity, and an applicant wishes to build a
nuclear reactor to provide this capacity, for which a federal
license is required. One of the benefits of the project might be
the jobs and economic growth it would generate for the region.
A proper statement of need for the federal action would relate
to the provision of electricity capacity; the EIS on the project
must examine alternative ways of increasing regional electric-
ity capacity. A proper statement of purpose would relate to the
licensing of a nuclear power plant The federal action is the
granting of a license or permit necessary to construct the
additional electricity capacity. Were the regulatory agency
improperly to equate purpose and need in a single statement, it
might define the "purpose and need" as providing electricity
capacity and encouraging development of the nuclear industry
while also stimulating economic growth in the region. The
scope of alternatives is fundamentally different when the state-
ment of need is fused into a single statement of purpose and
need. The latter, limited, definition of need allows no alterna-
tives other than that proposed by the applicant, effectively
short-circuiting the alternatives requirement of NEPA.
Judge Thomas sees a strikingly similar "goal" (combin-
ing need and purpose) behind the expansion of Toledo
Express Airport." The FAA could have devised several
different statements of need for the Toledo project that
could have required its EIS to examine not only alternative
71. Coalition for Canyon Preservation v. Bowers, 632 F.2d 774, 11
ELR 20053 (9th Cir. 1980). See also Concerned About Trident v.
Rumsford, 555 F.2d 817..831 n.2, 6 ELR 20787. 20795 n.2 (D.C.
Cir. 1977) (an agency should produce an EIS that observes "objec-
tive reasonableness" when evaluating the "concept" behind the
action).
72. 40 C.F.R. §1502.14; see also Natural Resources Defense Counc.
v. Morton, 458 F.2d 827,836,2 ELR 20029,20032 (D.C. Cir. 1972)
(alternatives analysis must include reasonable actions to satisfy the
need even if they lie beyond agency's jurisdiction).
73. 938 F.2d 190, 196, 21 ELR 21142. 21146 (D.C. Cir. 1991).
-------
12-91
NEWS & ANALYSIS
21 ELR 10707
locations for a Burlington air cargo hub, but also alternatives
to air cargo services altogether. At the other extreme, the
FAA could have defined the need for the project so narrowly
that the only practical and feasible alternative was the con-
struction of a cargo hub at Toledo Express precisely as
proposed by Burlington. Judge Thomas believes that the
FAA properly adopted this latter approach.
Judicial Review of the Statements of Purpose and Need
The principal utility of this paradigm separating the state-
ments of purpose and need is to define a clearer standard
of judicial review. In the past, in those few cases in which
the definition of purpose or need has been at issue, courts
have not articulated a clear standard of review.74 It can be
argued, however, that the standard of judicial review should
not be the same for the two statements.
Because the underlying need for a federal action is
supposed to be examined objectively,75 without regard
to me agency's policy aims or statutory mission, the
adequacy of its definition is easily susceptible to judicial
review under the well-established "rule of reason" stand-
ard by scrutinizing the scope of alternatives.76 Precisely
the opposite standard should apply to the statement of
purpose. Since this statement should reflect an agency's
policy decision on how, when, and to what degree it will
satisfy the need, the adequacy of a statement of purpose
is largely a discretionary, administrative determination,
and should be subject to judicial review under a much
more deferential standard.77 A statement of purpose
should be reviewed only to determine whether it violates
an agency's statutory authority or mission.
This distinction between the statements of purpose and
need should alleviate the difficulties of judicial review ex-
emplified by Citizens Against Burlington. As Judge Tho-
mas's discussion implies, courts are loath to second guess
an agency's decision when a court cannot distinguish be-
tween an agency's policy preferences and the objective facts
underlying that decision. Joint statements of purpose and
need, therefore, are likely to be upheld not because a court
finds that they meet the requirements of NEPA, but because
74. See. e.g., Roosevelt Campobcllo Int'l Park Coram'n v. U.S. EPA,
684 F.2d 1041,1046,12 ELR 20903,20905 (1st Cir. 1982) ("need"
for a project not required to be updated "in order to accommodate
the most recent data and federal policy shifts"); Izaak Walton League
of America v. Marsh, 655 F.2d 346. 372, 11 ELR 20707, 20721
(D.C. Or. 1981). een. denied, 454 U.S. 1092 (1981) (congressional
passage of a statute specifically authorizing a project narrows the
breadth of the investigation of alternatives (defined by the need and
purpose of the project)).
75. See supra note 71.
76. See Natural Resources Defense Council, 458 F.2d at 835, 2 ELR
at 20031 (articulating the "rule of reason" standard for judicial
review). See also Roosevelt Campobello, 684 F.2d at 1047,12 ELR
at 20905 (court "measures federal agency compliance with NEPA's
procedural requirements" by adhering to a "rule of reason"); Cali-
fornia v. Block,-.690 R2d 753,767,13 ELR 20092,20098 (9th Cir.
1982) (alternatives discussed provide the basis for the "rule of
reason" under which the agency decisionmaking process is reviewed
by the courts); Izaak Walton League, 655 F.2d at 371-72, 11 ELR
at 20721 ("rule of reason" complied with as "long as the agency's
conclusions have a substantial basis in fact"); Concerned About
Trident v. Rumsford, 555 F^d 817,827,6 ELR 20787,20792 (D.C.
Cir. 1977) ("[i]n determining [NEPA compliance], we are governed
by the rule of reason" (citations omitted)).
77. See 938 F.2d at 196. 21 ELR at 21145.
of reluctance to impose judicially established policy pref-
erences on federal agencies.
Although courts frequently have confused or combined
the concepts of purpose and need, at least one court has
successfully drawn the distinction. In Druid Hills Civic
Association v. Federal Highway Administration,7S the Elev-
enth Circuit confronted the plaintiffs' claim that the Federal
Highway Administration, when considering alternatives to
the purpose for its proposed parkway construction, "did
not provide a full and fair discussion of the traffic and safety
justifications for the road because information was omitted
that did not support the perceived need for the project." w
The court drew a clear separation between the need for the
project ("{t]he proposed Parkway is premised on the need
for transportation improvements in the east-west corri-
dor") *° and the purpose for the granting of construction
permits ("providing an alternative east-west route," thus
decreasing traffic volumes on the existing road, and "im-
provfing] safety conditions in the corridor" by reducing
traffic overflow onto local streets). *' The court went on to
examine the discussion of alternatives to the need, and held
that although the EIS did not "contain what some may feel
is a detailed and careful analysis" of all potential alterna-
tives, the analysis was adequate.K
Druid Hills stands as an unusual example of a clearly
differentiated need and purpose for a project. The general,
objective need for improved traffic flow on the east-west
corridor was addressed not only by the preferred alternative
and the purpose of the federal action, but also by a consid-
eration in the EIS of subway, light rail, and other potential
solutions.13 The court found no fault with the subjective
determination of the purpose for the action and held that
the discussion of alternatives reasonably fit the need. **
Necessity for Alternatives to Reflect Need
This lengthy discussion of the statements of purpose and
need is critical to understanding Citizens Against Burlington
and earlier cases that have examined whether the discussion
of alternatives in an EIS is adequate. As has been seen, the
foundation for an adequate discussion of alternatives is the
statement of need. If a litigant does not challenge the pro-
priety of an agency's statement of need, then the reviewing
court is limited to examining whether the scope of alterna-
tives closely matches the statement of need. In the principal
cases in which courts have upheld the discussion of alter-
natives, the statement of need generally parallels closely
the range of alternatives." Where courts have found the
78. 772 F.2d 700, 15 ELR 21082 (llth Cir. 1985).
79. Id. at 710, 15 ELR at 21086.
80. Id. at 709. 15 ELR at 21086.
81. Id. at 710. 15 ELR at 21086.
82. Id. at 713. 15 ELR at 21088.
83. Id.
84. Id.
85. See. e.g.. Roosevelt Campobello Infl Park Comm'n v. U.S. EPA,
684 F.2d 1041. 1047, 12 ELR 20903, 20905 (1st Cir. 1982) (ap-
proving a limitation of the range of alternatives based on the need
for a deepwater port); Izaak Walton League of America v. Marsh,
655 F.2d 346, 372, 11 ELR 20707, 20721 (D.C. Cir. 1981) (where
need has been statutorily narrowly defined, the discussion of alter-
natives is similarly "relatively narrow"); North Slope Borough v.
7 Andrus. 642 F.2d 589.601. 10 ELR 20832.20838 (D.C. Cir. 1980)
(agencies have discretion to treat the discussion of alternatives
-------
21 ELR 10708
ENVIRONMENTAL LAW REPORTER
12-91
of alternatives to be objectionable, it generally
because the EIS has omitted reasonable alternatives that
would"" meet ffie "heed. **
For example, in Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc. v.
Morton,1" the D.C. Circuit examined the adequacy of an EIS
on oil and gas leases issued under the Outer Continental Shelf
letsing program. The court held that the Department of Interior
improperly limited its discussion of alternatives to those that
lay within its jurisdiction. The need for the project was set forth
in * message to Congress by President Nixon in which the
President proposed a coordinated plan to deal with research
and development toward the goal of clean energy." The EIS,
however, improperly omitted reasonable alternatives that did
not fulfill the entire need, the agency did not have authorityto
implement, or would have required legislative implementa-
tion. ** The court explained mat the scope of alternatives must
match the need for the action:
When the proposed action is an integral part of » coordi-
nated plan to deal with a broad problem, the range of
alternatives that must be evaluated must be broadened.
; ' While the Department of Interior does not have the
authority [to implement all alternatives] such action is
within the purview of both Congress and the President,
to whom the impact statement goes.*3
The opposite result prevailed where Congress enacted
legislation specifically directing the construction of a pro-
ject. In IzaakWalton League of America v. Marsh, an EIS
was prepared on construction of new locks and dams on
the Mississippi River. Plaintiffs alleged that the Army Corps
of Engineers should have examined rehabilitation of exist-
ing facilities, alternative modes of transportation, and im-
proved congestion control as alternatives to the proposed
new locks and dams." The D.C. Circuit held that the agency
did not have to examine those alternatives because the need
for the project was set by congressional mandate to build
specially with respect to the goal of the project); Trout Unlimited
;;>...Morton.,509 K2d 1276, 1286, 5 ELR 20151, 20155 (9th Cir.
1974) (finding consideration of alternatives adequate as long as all
"those "rclioh'ibly related to the purposes of the project" are in-
, ' "eluded). • . , . .
S6. See.e.g., VanlAbbemav.Fomell, 807 Fid 633.638,17 ELR 20429,
2O432 (7th Or. 1986) (discussion of alternatives must "be an evalu-
ation of alternative means to accomplish the generic goal of an
action ... not an evaluation of the alternative means by which a
particular applicant can reach his goal"; discussion did not respond
to broad need and therefore inadequate); California v. Block, 690
K2d 753. 767, 13 ELR 20092, 20098 (9th Or. 1982) (where the
need to be addressed is "how to allocate a scarce resource—wil-
oeroets—between the two competing and mutually exclusive de-
mands of wilderness use and development." it is unreasonable to
fail to examine any alternative that develops less than 37 percent
of the wilderness); Sierra Club v. Marsh, 714 F. Supp. 539, 577,
20 ELR 20216,20235 (D. Me. 1989) (striking down EIS as inade-
quate ***•*"«<• discussion of alternatives focussed too narrowly on
it's desires rather than the broader need for an expanded
deep-water port capacity); California ex rcl. Van de Kamp v. Marsh,
687 F. SUPPV495.495-99,19 ELR 20165,20166 (ND. Cal. 1988)
(obvious alternative of resolving need for an expanded airport by
locating pan of the project at another airport not ditcusted; hence
discussion i^
1.5
87. 458 F.2d 827,2 ELR 20029 (D.C. Cir. 1972).
88. Id. at 835.2 ELR at 20030.
89. Id. at 837,2 ELR at 20033-34.
90. Id. at 835.2 ELR at 20033.
91. 655 F.2d 346, 372. 11 ELR 20707, 20721 (D.C. Cir. 1981).
new locks and dams; the agency properly examined all
reasonable alternative means of satisfying that mandate.n
One of the clearest examples of the necessity for the
range of alternatives to respond to the statement of need
appears in Sierra Club v. Marsh." In that case, the district
court found that the Army Corps of Engineers had omitted
reasonable alternatives in its EIS for a federal permit to
construct a marine cargo terminal on the coast of Sears
Island, Maine. The federal agency argued that any alterna-
tive that would not satisfy the applicant's stated goals or
needs is inherently not reasonable. The court disagreed.
Quoting CEQ guidance, the court held that, while the agency
properly should not disregard the applicant's desires, those
desires alone are not enough to define the need for a pro-
ject. ** The court examined the record in detail to discern
both the applicant's "primary project objective" and the
federal agency's "general goals" for the project.95 The
court next reviewed each potential alternative proffered by
the plaintiff to determine whether it would satisfy the need
for the project. It then held that several omitted off-site
alternatives were not reasonable in the circumstances but
that omitted on-site alternatives should have been exam-
ined.96 The court explained the relationship among the
statement of need, the applicant's desires, and the scope of
alternatives:
The central project goals identifiable in the present FEIS
contemplate an efficient marine dry cargo ... terminal
intheSearsportarea... .Although [the applicant] amply
demonstrates that it "desires" a terminal facility capable
of expansion to six berths, unless its preferences bear a
rational relationship to the technical and economic integ-
rity of the project, they would not warrant exclusion of
some otherwise "reasonable alternative" from analysis
under NEPA. A project's principal goals must override
the stated preferences of the applicant for purposes of
NEPA's "reasonable alternatives" analysis.
Surprisingly, there are few cases in which the adequacy
of the agency's statement of purpose has been at issue.
There are several possible explanations for the absence of
such case law. First, agencies frequently prepare a single
statement of "purpose and need," thereby making it difficult
if not impossible to distinguish between the purpose and
need.9* Some agencies—including the FAA in the case of
the Toledo airport EIS—prepare a single statement that
intersperses the terms "purpose" and "need" with intended
synonyms such as "goal," "objective," "mission," or simi-
lar words that blur the distinction. This fusing of purpose
and need makes it nearly impossible for potential challeng-
ers (and the reviewing court) to determine whether the
agency has examined a reasonable range of alternatives to
meet the need."
92. Id. at 372-74, 11 ELR at 20721-22.
93. 714 F. Supp. 539, 20 ELR 20216 (D. Me. 1989).
94. Id. at 573-74, 20 ELR at 20233 (citations omitted).
95. Id. at 575-76. 20 ELR at 20234-35.
96. Id. at 577-82,20 ELR at 20235-37. " ~
97. Id. at 577, 20 ELR at 20235 (citations omitted).
98. This difficulty is exemplified by the Van Abbema opinion. There,
the court attempted to distinguish between the "general" and the
"specific" agency goals, a distinction which Judge Thomas in CM-
"> o tens Against Burlington correctly criticizes as unworkable. 938 F.2d
--~5 190, 199, 21 ELR 21142, 21147 (D.C. Cir. 1991).
99. No alternative may be rejected on the grounds that it does not fully
LJ!i"l"L nil"! iin.1' j hi iii iiiiiiii,iiiiiiiiiiii::"ii;8iiiir
-------
12-91
NEWS & ANALYSIS
21 ELR 10709
A good illustration of this problem is the First Circuit's
opinion in Roosevelt Campobello International Park Com-
mission v. Environmental Protection Agency. l°° The plain-
tiffs specifically challenged the adequacy of the agency's
statement of need for a deepwater port at Eastport, Maine,
as "totally outdated and of no present use."l0' The court
used such phrases as "justification for the project," and the
applicant's "primary objectives" that blurred the distinction
between the need for the project and the agency's purpose
in reviewing an applicant's proposals.l02 While the court
appeared to view the need to be the "longstanding federal
policy of encouraging the construction of domestic refining
capacity in order to promote national security," the court
also opined that the need to which the agency was respond*
ing was more limited:
[Evaluation of alternatives was explicitly based on the
premise that [the agency's] role in reviewing privately
sponsored projects "is to determine whether the pro-
posed site is environmentally acceptable " ""
It is noteworthy that the very next year, the CEQ criticized
the implication in Roosevelt Campobello that an agency's
role (i.e., the purpose of the federal action) properly defined
the scope of alternatives.I0*
Other courts have used terminology that makes it nearly
impossible to distinguish between purpose and need. For
example, -in Residents in Protest—I-35E v. Dole,IOS the
court used the phrases "purposes of the project," "goals
and objectives," and "underlying goals of the project,"
synonymously with the phrase "need which [the project]
was designed to serve."106 In Natural Resources Defense
Council, Inc. v. Callaway,107 the court stated that the content
and scope of alternatives is a function of the "nature of the
proposal"; an EIS must discuss alternatives that "meet the
proposal's goals."I0*
Both Judge Thomas and the FAA fell into the same trap
in Citizens Against Burlington. First, neither Judge Thomas
nor the FAA uses the terms carefully; Judge Thomas's
"goals" and "objectives" appear to be a combination of
the agency's purpose and the need for the project. The EIS
itself contains no clearly articulated statement of purpose
and need, either separately or jointly.m The EIS does not
even purport to include a statement of purpose; the section
of the EIS that was labeled as the agency's statement of
need contains a jumbled discussion of purpose, need, de-
scription of the project and benefits of the proposed federal
accomplish every goal of the originally proposed action. See Town
of Matthews v. United States Dep't of Transp.. 527 F. Supp. 1055,
1058, 12 ELR 20345. 20346 (W.D. N.C. 1981).
100. 684 F.2d 1041. 12 ELR 20903 (1st Cir. 1982).
101. Id. at 1046, 12 ELR at 20905.
102. Id. at 1046-47, 12 ELR at 20905.
103. Id. at 1046, 12 ELR at 20905.
104. CEQ MEMORANDUM ON GUIDANCE, supra note 61,48 Fed. Reg.
at 34267, ELR ADMIN. MATERIALS at 35048.
105. 583 F. Supp. 653. 660-61 (D. Minn. 1984).
106. Id. at 659-60. '•
107. 524 F.2d 79, 93, 5 ELR 20640. 20647 (2d Cir. 1975).
108. Id.
109. Toledo EIS. supra note 14. at 1-3 (subhead for section discussing
the purpose and need for the project is entitled "Need for the Federal
Action"). 1 S ^
action. "° It appears that the FAA believed that the need
for the proposed action was
to facilitate [Toledo-Lucas County Port Authority's]
construction of facilities at the airport for an air cargo
hub that will serve as Burlington's permanent hub ...
[and to provide for] extending Runway 7-25 to provide
safe and adequate length to permit Burlington Air Ex-
press to operate fully loaded DC-8-63F aircraft to west
coast market destinations.m
Instead of setting forth a clear statement of purpose, the
EIS sets forth the factors that the FAA says it considered
in meeting the need, including the agency's "statutory man-
date to facilitate the establishment of air cargo hubs," and
the FAA's
responsibility to review the airport design and runway
configuration with respect to safety, efficiency and utility
within the national airspace system and its environ-
mental impact on the surrounding area.":
Although he claims that the court defers to the agency's
definition of the purpose and need for the project. Judge
Thomas does nothing of the sort. He weaves of whole cloth
the explanation in Citizens Against Burlington that the pur-
pose or need for the Toledo project was both construction
of a cargo hub for Burlington and the economic revitaliza-
tion of the Toledo economy. The court's explanation is
troubling not only because it is a court-imposed definition,
but also because it fuses purpose, need and beneficial im-
pacts of the project. Even if one accepted the court's implicit
conclusion mat it is permissible to equate purpose and need,
this statement neither reflects the objective necessity for
the Toledo project (the need) nor bears any relationship to
the federal action that, by statute, is limited to the approval
(and possible funding) of the layout plan for the expansion
of Toledo Express Airport (the purpose). Consequently.
even under the court's assertion that the purpose and need
should reflect the nature of the agency's role, the court's
definition fails to pass muster.
The holding in Citizens Against Burlington is not, how-
ever, dependent on Judge Thomas's redefinition of the pur-
pose and need for the project. If one were to construct
separate statements of purpose and need for the Toledo EIS,
it appears that the FAA believed that the need for the Toledo
project was to provide a permanent air cargo hub at Toledo
Express Airport for Burlington. The purpose for the federal
action was to design a safe and efficient facility that meets
federal aviation standards.
Under this refined statement of purpose and need, it
appears that the FAA's decision to evaluate only two alter-
natives was unobjectionable. Because the parties focussed
strictly on whether the FAA had omitted discussion of
reasonable alternative ways of meeting the need, moreover,
the court did not need to examine the adequacy of the
statement of need.
Arguably, therefore. Judge Thomas's discussion of the
agency's goals and objectives is little more than dicta.lli
no. Id. at 1-3, i-4r
111. Id. at 1-3. - _
112. Id.
113. Similarly, his supposed holding that the scope of alternatives is
defined by the agency's role is contradicted by a binding D.C. Circuit
precedent. Natural Resources Defense Council v. Morton, 458 F.2d
827, 834-37, 2 ELR 20029. 20032-33 (D.C. Cir. 1972). It is sig-
-------
"W"";!, "Sifi i-Silji
ii i •
11 :" "" ii! >' '''''I?1!!'':: """I! ' ;"" " '?'!»!!,,
21 ELR 10710
ENVIRONMENTAL LAW REPORTER
12-91
i , ,,, ; •' i'ui ' • h • iiljh, "!'
The only issue presented to the D.C. Circuit was whether
he EIS discussed all reasonable alternative ways to provide
i. permanent "air cargo hub at Toledo for Burlington. If one
accepts either the FAA's or Judge Thomas's statement of
the need, the case is not a close one. It was reasonable for
the FAA to conclude that only the preferred alternative
could reasonably satisfy the need articulated in the EIS
because the FAA's statement equated need with purpose.
The case shows how, if need (i.e., the general, objective
necessity the project is designed to meet) is fused with
purpose (i.e., the specific, subjective policy choices of the
agency, taking into account the preferences of the applicant),
it becomes straightforward for an agency to avoid examining
ahf alternative but the preferred one. When the need for a
project is allowed to be defined as its purpose, by definition
there can be only one alternative. If the need is for an
expanded airport at Toledo to serve a specific air cargo
carrier, it is unreasonable to demand consideration of any
alternative site in Ft. Wayne or elsewhere because such
alternatives do not fulfill the need. In Citizens Against
Burlington, either Judge Thomas's invention of an eco-
nomic goal for the project or the FAA's mixing together
of purpose and need leads to the same result: no examination
of any alternative other than the location of the expanded
cargo hub at Toledo Express.
Lessons for Agencies and NEPA Litigants From
Citizens Against Burlington
''' '' ' " , 'i INF i|iini| MI , :i "
' 'Ilil'ilP1!','!1 '> ,„ i1 ,' • i • ,,'ilBl',, JUKii'!1'!!! ' ;
At first reading, Judge Thomas* s opinion in Citizens Against
Burlington may be seen as a complete victory for NEPA
critics and federal agencies seeking to avoid the statute's
procedural hurdles. The lessons of the case, however, are
far less one-sided.
First, notwithstanding Judge Thomas's lengthy discus-
sion about deference to an applicant's desires, the case
should not be read as standing for the novel proposition
that the scope of alternatives in an EIS depends on the
nature of the federal action. At best, the discussion is an
explanation of why the scope of alternatives properly
matched the FAA's statement of the need for the project;
at worst, the discussion is mere dicta.
Several reasons are immediately apparent why Citizens
Against Burlington cannot establish a system of inquiry
Under NEPA that is dependent on the nature and degree of
federal participation in a project Most obviously, such a
system would run counter to express CEQ guidance on the
scope of alternatives, guidance which the court does not
even discuss. A system that is dependent on the extent of
federal involvement also would conflict directly with case
law (including D.C. Circuit law), which holds that the scope
of an EIS—including the project's impacts and alterna-
tives—must include nonfederal elements of a project even
when the federal government is only authorizing or permit-
ting a small portion of the project. "*
ruflcmnt that Judge Thomas does not attempt to distinguish Natural
Resources Defense Council and its holding that the scope of alter-
nidvcs in an EIS cannot be limited by the nature of the agency's
authority. That remains the law in the D.C. Circuit and elsewhere.
„ ipi il i!! ,;"'•!'! ' ;jll' ' „ ,i jifn , , ,
114. See National Forest Preservation Group v. Butz, 485 F.2d 408,
411-12, 3 ELR 20783, 20784 (9th Cir. 1973); Scientists' Inst. for
Pub. Information v. Atomic Energy Cornm'n, 481 R2d 1079,1088-
89, 3 ELR 2052S, 20529-30 (DlC. Cir. 1973). 1.5.3-
if r , , : / „, n, | 11 ', l,!',1",,••;•,' .|, , ,, ,„
Additionally, such a system would violate the binding
D.C. Circuit precedent in which the court has held that the
scope of alternatives cannot be defined by the nature of the
federal involvement in a project.11! Judge Thomas fails to
discuss this precedent as well. Finally, if the court had
intended to disregard CEQ guidance, shift NEPA law, and
overrule D.C. Circuit precedent, it is reasonable to expect
that the court would at least have explained its intent to do
so. That the court was silent on such precedents suggests
that it had no such intention.
What Judge Thomas's discussion does highlight is the
importance of defining the need for a project. An interest-
ing—if hypothetical—question is whether the FAA's murky
statement of need could have survived close judicial scru-
tiny. That statement appears vulnerable because of its lack
of objectivity, its fusing of the agency's policy aims with
objective statements of fact, and because it set criteria that
made the preferred alternative the only reasonable alterna-
tive. One could argue that an agency's statement of need—
like that for Toledo—is prima facie improper if it allows
for examination of only a single alternative.
For prospective litigants, Citizens Against Burlington under-
scores the importance of challenging the adequacy of the
statement of need in the EIS commenting process and again on
judicial review. Making a record to demonstrate that the agency
is responding to a broad need would make it substantially easier
to show that a narrow range of alternatives is not responsive to
the need.'" An ELS that rejects all alternatives but the preferred
one (or minor, cosmetic variations on the preferred alternative)
should raise immediate skepticism not only that the scope of
alternatives is improper, but also that the agency has fused its
statements of purpose and need into a single self-justifying
policy statement.
Similarly, agencies should be forced to distinguish between
the need and purpose for a project and should be challenged
when they use ill-defined terms such as "goals," "objectives,"
or "mission." The statutory and regulatory language is clear
and defined; agencies should use such language to avoid the
ambiguity that results when different courts try to use the same
words for different purposes (e.g., the Van Abbema court and
the Citizens Against Burlington court).
In Citizens Against Burlington, the FAA's confused state-
ment of need was not at issue. Had it been, the Toledo EIS
might have been vulnerable. A plaintiff can avoid a Citizens
Against Burlington situation by ensuring that it creates a
record to support the need for the project and by supporting
its rejection of alternatives with reference to that need.
While Judge Thomas's discussion suggests that an agency
can define its "goals" by reference to an applicant's desires,
agencies should not interpret that discussion as anything
more than a reaffirmation of an agency's wide discretion
to define the purpose of a federal action. Agencies still
must examine all reasonable alternatives that fulfill the need
for the proposed action, regardless of whether such alter-
natives match the agency's policy objectives or whether
the agency can implement them.
115. See, e.g.. Natural Resources Defense Council, 458 F.2d at 834-36,
2 ELR at 20032-33.
116. In Roosevelt Campobello, for example, the court criticized plaintiffs
for not challenging the adequacy of the statement of need during
the public comment period. 684 F.2d 1041, 1046. 12 ELR 20903,
10 20905 (1st Cir. 1982).
-------
ASSESSMENT
In this part of the Resource Manual, "assessment" is used narrowly and
includes tasks associated with the preparation of El A documents (i.e., those activities
for which the core team is directly responsible). These include:
• description of the affected environments,
• description of the future environmental setting (without the
proposed action),
• identification of potential environmental impacts of a proposed
action and its reasonable alternatives,
• analysis and quantification, if possible, of potential impacts,
• evaluation of the significance of potential environmental impacts,
• description of mitigation measures for unavoidable environmental
impacts, and
• preparation of an EA document for use by the decisionmaker.
However, "assessment" is often used broadly to include policy related activities
such as defining issues, evaluating the overall significance of a proposed action,
and choosing the appropriate alternative. For purposes of this sourcebook, we
use "environmental impact assessment (EIA) process" to describe the broad
implications of environmental assessment. These include, in addition to assessment,
the activities that precede and follow assessment (i.e, initiation, scoping,
decisionmaking and post-decision analysis).
1.5.4-1
-------
i' 1 ; t
JI1"'!'' ,' .!!! i ,!, i
Ml' ;:
lih
!« '•
,' ii
I, \
in hir Hi
.fi'' "
-------
Description of Environmental Setting
The description of the affected environments must identify the important
physical, biological, and social/cultural characteristics of the areas potentially
exposed to the proposed action and alternatives and explain the reasons for the
boundaries of the study areas. Only those elements which are relevant to the
issues identified for the proposed action and alternatives need be identified and
evaluated. It is normally one of the first activities undertaken in the assessment
phase of EA and has been described as a "description of conditions existing at a
point in time against which subsequent changes can be detected through
monitoring" (Hirsch 1980). The approach commonly token is subdivision of the
resources into categories (Table 4.1-1). Depending on the size and complexity
of the EA, core team members are chosen with expertise in the appropriate areas
(Attachment 2.C). Experience from similar projects can be helpful in identifying
environmental components that should be described.
The initial description of the affected environment should identify
important gaps for which subsequent field or laboratory investigations are needed.
For many areas which .have already been studied, even if in a fragmented way,
a meaningful characterization can be developed based on existing information.
In other areas, field reconnaissance or study may be required even to complete
a rough or initial characterization (Hirsch 1980). Reconnaissance-level
information is that which is available from open literature, published or
unpublished reports, existing records, authoritative sources, or brief field surveys
performed by recognized experts. It is not based on information that can only be
obtained by detailed onsite monitoring programs or studies (McBrayer et al.,
1981).
1.5.4-3
-------
Table 4'.i-l.: General Baseline Informatteon a Site and its Surroundings^
Category
Type of information
Sources of information
Land use and zoning
Floodplains and wetlands
t
Prime and unique farmlands
Cultural and aesthetic
resources
Geology
Terrestrial and aquatic ecology
Maps and tables showing present land use on the site and
surrounding area; land ownership; regional, state, and local land-
use plans and controls pertinent to the site and surrounding area.
Maps showing the locations of the 100- and 500-year floodplains
and onsite wetlands; table showing onsite area for each floodplain
or wetland; description of each onsite wetland, including
dominant features and abundance of each wetland type.
Soils map of the site; description of onsite soil types; area of
each soil on the site that is classified as prime or unique
farmland.
Location and description of cultural and aesthetic resources on or
in the vicinity of the site, including historic and archaeological
sites, Indian tribal resources, scenic, and other aesthetic
resources.
Geological bedrock, and surface formations; topography; location
and description of potential geologic hazards, including
consideration of slope stability, mass movement, faults,
subsidence, settlement, liquefaction, and volcanic activity.
Map and description of vegetation types on the site; wildlife
species and habitats;-presence of rare, unique, or important
ecological communities or habitats; description of aquatic habitat
types and aquatic species present in water bodies; abundance of
important species, trends in abundance, and distributions relative
to the proposed project.
State, regional, and local planning commissions; state agencies,
such as Departments of Conservation, Fish and Game, and Parks;
federal agencies, such as U.S. Geological Survey (USGS), Soil
Conservation Service (SCS), Bureau of Land Management
(BLM), Forest Service; onsite observations.
Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) Flood
Insurance Rate Maps and Federal Emergency Management
Agency (FEMA) Flood Hazard Boundary Maps; USGS
topographic maps; county soil surveys; U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service (FWS) National Wetlands Inventory; U.S. Army Corps
of Engineers (COB); onsite observations.
SCS; state soil conservationist and local soil conservation office;
state agricultural colleges.
State historic preservation office; National Register of Historic
Places; National Register of Natural Landmarks; U.S. Bureau of
Indian Affairs; local tribal headquarters; onsite observations.
USGS national distribution center, Reston, Virginia; USGS
depositories of publications at each state land grant university;
state geologist; USGS topographic and land-use maps; onsite .,
observations.
Ecoiogists and other biologists at local and state colleges and
universities; private environmental and conservation
organizations; state fish and game and conservation agencies;
onsite observations, FWS habitat evaluation procedures.
-------
Table 4.1-1. (continued)
Category
Type of information
Sources of information
Endangered and threatened
species
Groundwatcr
Surface water
Climate and air quality
Noise**
Lists and descriptions of federal and state endangered,
threatened, rare, and protected species and their critical habitat
present in the region of the site; observations and reports of such
species and habitats on the site or on other areas to be affected
by the project.
Description of groundwater resources potentially affected by the
project, including aquifer characteristics, flow system
characteristics, competing water use and availability, water
quality, designation of any sole source aquifer; locations and
depths of existing wells.
Description of surface water features that will be affected by the
project; a map showing the drainage pattern of the site and its
surroundings and onsite water bodies: data on water availability
and water quality of affected water bodies; identification of
existing permitted discharges to surface water.
Important climatic parameters, such as, average temperatures,
relative humidity, precipitation, wind direction and speed, wind
stability classes, mixing heights, fog occurrence, and
meteorological extremes (e.g., tornado or hurricane frequency);
identification of air quality control regions in which the site is
located and those affected by emissions from the facility;
description of the attainment or nonattainment status for the
criteria pollutants; description of present ambient air quality;
State Implementation Plan (SIP) restrictions; location of any
Class I area (nondegradation areas, e.g., wilderness areas or
national parks) affected by project emissions; discussion of trends
in pollutant levels over time where data on air quality is
available.
Existing ambient background noise levels on the site and in the
vicinity; major existing or planned noise sources and sensitive
receptors (e.g., hospitals).
Federal listing of endangered and threatened species, published
annually and updated as needed in the Federal Register: state lists
of endangered and threatened species, generally published by
state departments of fish and game or conservation; local
chapters of organizations concerned with environment and
conservation (e.g., the National Audubon Society or the National
Wildlife Federation); consultation with FWS regional office;
onsite observations.
USGS; U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA); delegated
state agencies for administering EPA permit programs; state
geological survey; geologists and hydrologists at local and state
colleges and universities; National Waterwell Association; onsite
well records.
USGS topographic maps; aerial photographs; comprehensive data
bases such as Water Resources Abstracts, WATSTORE,
NAWDEX, and STORET; state and federal agencies responsible
for permitting, including EPA, COE and delegated state agencies;
onsite observations.
National Weather Service or Federal Aviation Administration
stations; National Climatic Center, Asheville, North Carolina;
local airports; U.S. EPA or state agency delegated to administer
air quality permits; other industrial or research facilities that
collect climatic or air quality data.
Onsite measurements; contacts with local and state agencies;
examination of area maps.
-------
Type of information
Category
Socioeconomics
Dcrmition of tocioeconomic impact region; current and projected
population and relevant demographic characteristics; local
government revenues, expenditures, and revenue-sharing
arrangements; current and projected housing capacity; current
and planned public service capacity (water, sewer, transportation,
police, Tire, health, education, and welfare); economic structure
and labor force characteristics; local government characteristics;
local organizations and interest groups; social structure and life
styles; local support or opposition to the proposed project.
Sources of information
U.S. Bureau of Census, U.S. Department of Transportation,
Department of Labor Statistics, Department of Commerce
publications; employment commissions; chambers of commerce;
tourist bureaus; academic reports - especially by local
institutions; local newspapers; interviews with government
officials; researchers; and interested parties; inspection of the site
and region.
programs
of federal agencies relating to land use.
-------
NEEDS
Establishment of time and space boundaries for the affected
environment is a critical first step in EA. The team can expect
more than one set of boundaries depending on the issue(s). The
setting of boundaries usually represents a trade-off of constraints
imposed by:
administrative boundaries (e.g., political, social, and
economic realities),
project boundaries (e.g., the spatial and temporal extent of
the project),
ecological boundaries (e.g., time and space scales over
which affected natural systems operate), and
technical boundaries (e.g., the limited state-of-the-art in
predicting or measuring ecological changes).
It is important to distinguish between the categories since some are
under the control of the EA team while others are relatively fixed
(Beanlands and Duinker 1983).
The data requirements for relevant analyses are based on
understanding of the proposed action and any tentative mitigation,
clearly defined EA objectives, and the requirements of the
methodologies to be used for prediction of impacts. The EA team
will:
- assemble, evaluate, and present baseline data on the
relevant environmental characteristics of the study area,
including information on any changes anticipated before the
project commences;
collate data from the various disciplinary areas and evaluate
data usefulness, needs, and availability in relation to the
proposed action;
identify gaps in information; and
avoid collecting unnecessary information and data.
Before using existing environmental data for project assessment,
a number of possible limitations must be checked. The quality of
reported environmental data must be assessed, and this is generally
not an easy task. One should look for quality control and
assurance programs as an integral part of any past monitoring
efforts. Responsible agencies, laboratories, or monitoring or
analytical personnel should be contacted for information on the
1.5.4-7
-------
estimated quality of the reported data, in general, work done by major federal
agencies mat have standard reference methods for sample collection and analysis
Should be useful. However, laboratories that may be consistent internally (be
highly precise) in their sample analysis may show inaccuracies with other
analytical groups.
The reliability and comparability of existing data to present site-
specific conditions should be checked. Existing data for
geographic areas removed from exact locations of interest will
usually have to be verified in the field for comparability. Any
significant environmental changes after the field data have been
collected, such as from new pollution sources or from recent
environmentai events such as flooding or fire, should be
determined.
TOOLS
The use of checklists can help the EA team identify potential
impacts (Attachment 2.B, Part 4.2), ensure that significant
environmental parameters are not overlooked, and provide an
diitline of data needs. It can also help to identify alternatives
which might lessen impact. Checklists are suited to identification
of direct impacts but generally not to identification of indirect
impacts. A matrix is an extension of a checklist where one axis
lists description of the proposed action while the other lists
environmental conditions. The> Leopold matrix (Leopold et. al.
1971) provides a format for comprehensive review to remind
investigators of the variety of interactions that might be involved
(Figure 4.1-1). The number of actions listed horizontally in the
complete Leopold matrix is 100 and the vertical list of
environmental characteristics contains 88, which give a total
• of 8,800 possible interactions. The vertical list can be used as a
checklist to identify important environmental factors.
1.5.4-8
-------
-Q ~O .C as ^ ^ o u o
ededcducJQOX —»
A. 2. d. Water quality
A. 3. a. Atmospheric quality
A. 4. b. Erosion
A. 4. c. Deposition, Sedimentation
B. 1. b. Shrubs
B. 1. c. Grasses
B. 1. f. Aquatic plants
B. 2. c. Fish
C. 2. e. Camping and hiking
C. 3. a. Scenic views and vistas
C. 3. b. Wilderness qualities
C. 3. h. Rare and unique species
C. 4. b. Health and safety
V)
D)
2
1 »
-B §>
O)
c
O) c
= o
J 1 = i 1 s 'a JS
* ^ r- m » *•* m
.ticgTsgo =S
•""•ii^S c
— a,3i)S5
i;SEeST5.= t'eo
OT5">-S«™-^JSu>
Sx: e^)'*- ® <->^.=
•o .ra w ra 3 .E 2 E '5.
£ll— eocoSl— LUCO
V
V
v1
y
v'
>/
v
V
y
V
V
V
>/
>/
V
y
V
V
V
V
V
V
v'
V
V
V
^/
V
V
V
V
>/
V
V
V
V
V
V
V
V
FIGURE 4.1-1. A reduced matrix for a phosphate mining lease.
(Source: Leopold et al. 1971)
Environmental field studies can be more or less extensive
depending upon the existing information. Their scope will vary in
relation to the nature of the proposed action and the information
gaps that need to be filled. Field studies document the existing
environmental conditions and contribute to trend information in the
potentially affected region. They provide a reference baseline
from which the assessment team can predict the effects of the
proposed action, recommend alternatives, define appropriate
mitigation measures, and design future programs to monitor the
accuracy of predictions and the effectiveness of mitigation.
1.5.4-9
-------
II
'"'[
ii .,,
An environmental field study is only part of the EA process and
as such Is influenced by external factors. These include, for
example:
- other socioeconbmic studies being performed,
political and legal requirements to be met,
specific features and timing of the proposed action,
project planning and engineering,
stages of the decisionmaking process requiring environ-
mental input, and
how the baseline data will be used in the construction,
operation, and closure phases of an approved action.
For example, the identification of permeable strata in geotechnical
studies may dictate an emphasis on biological effects-of leachates
contaminating surface waters down-slope from a development; or
frequent temperature inversions detected by atmospheric studies
mafcill for increased emphasis on the biological effects of
gaseous emissions; or water resource studies may reveal a general
lack of surface water in a region, thereby requiring greater
emphasis on a few surface water bodies as critical habitats in the
ecological studies, ~~
Mpst important is the integration of environmental field studies
with engineering design studies. Impact predictions will be
accurate only to the extent that the best possible environmental
knowledge is combined with detailed engineering plans in the
presence of good professional judgment.
Once environmental components of interest are identified, it is
necessary to choose methods for measuring the appropriate
parameters. Methods selection is tempered by the limitations of
the state of the art, which include considerations of accuracy,
efficiency, and cost-effectiveness, and the amenability of various
methods to statistical analysis. Stepwise procedures for applying
''these""""important constraints to the final design of environmental
studies are too extensive to be included in this sourcebook.
However, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Manual "A Systems
Approach to Ecological Baseline Studies" (1978) contains the
conceptual framework for field studies and practical step-by-step
approaches to designing baseline studies.
1.5.4-10
-------
Whenever possible, existing data should be used to reduce the
costs of EA. Attachment 4.A lists some of the sources of
environmental monitoring data in the United States and elsewhere.
In developing countries, such data are less available which limits
description of the affected environment and prediction of potential
impacts.
Federal and state air and water quality monitoring generally is
designed as a large-scale regional surveillance effort, and thus is
particularly useful for policy, plan, and program EA. When local
data can be located, they often are not in a readily usable form;
specific parameters and analytical methods may not be adequate,
or quality control and assurance may not be sufficient. Existing
data usually are not computerized with an adequate and
comprehensive indexing code for geographical locations. Thus,
they are useful only to describe general environmental conditions
and recent trends in environmental quality and will generally have
limited use for site-specific analysis of environmental change.
Unfortunately, in the U.S. and other countries, central sources for
identifying all national, regional, and local monitoring efforts do
not exist. Information can be gathered from individual federal
(Attachment 4.A) and regional agencies by contacting the agency
directly or, in some rare instances, by contacting a central
information source (e.g., the Oak Ridge National Laboratory
Carbon Dioxide Information Analysis Center; Attachment 4.A).
In addition to the U.S. federal laws listed in Part D, other federal
laws contain provisions that affect the content and scope of an EA
under certain circumstances. Laws on water pollution control,
clear air, and surface mining control and reclamation as well as
permits or licenses may require baseline data. If a development
involves leasing lands from federal agencies, studies may be called
for in lease stipulations (e.g., leases for prototype oil shale
development). Requirements at the regional level of government
may be more strict than those at the federal level. In the U.S.,
sixteen states, the District of Columbia, and Puerto Rico have
environmental policy acts or "little NEPAs", and 18 other states
and the District of Columbia have limited environmental review
requirements established by statute, executive order or other
administrative directives (Part D). For the most part, proponents
will have had previous experience on similar projects and will be
able to direct the assessment team to other agencies that should be
contacted.
1.5.4-11
-------
ill it:
A summary of applicable legal requirements should be prepared
that includes:
federal, tribal, regional, or local agencies with decision-
making or review responsibilities;
- applicable federal, tribal, regional, or local laws, regula-
tions or permits and their specific environmental require-
ments;
official interpretations of the laws, regulations or permits;
information needs identified by federal, tribal, regional, or
local agency representatives; and
- specific requirements of any reports that must be produced.
Once'this information is available, the existing data for the site
should be compared to the requirements (e.g., water quality
criteria) to determine the information gaps and the extent of
additional monitoring data or other required information (e.g.,
archaeological or protected species surveys).
; ' • •' ; ' ''! '' ' , ' ,; . '„ ISSUES
Descriptions of the affected environment must concentrate on
issues that are significant and appropriate for the size and location
of the proposed action and alternatives rather than amassing
needless detail. The level of detail should be sufficient to convey
to a reader or reviewer the nature of the natural and human
resources. Where an action (and its anticipated effects) is
essentially confined to a particular piece of property, it may be
appropriate to describe natural and man-made features of the
property and vicinity. Where the action extends across several
regions or political subdivisions, as with a transmission line,
pipeline, or canal, the discussion of existing environments may
ifecefSarily be less detailed in certain categories.
Field studies should not be undertaken without clearly defined
^^.^ and understanding of the problem to which the data will
be applied. The data must be consistent with the needs of: the
E. A team for modeling or predictive purposes, the decisionmaker
and the project planners, and the legal and socioeconomic
requirements.
i •
Careful consideration must be given to the need for and value of
existing data in relation to their inherent limitations (e.g.,
fragmented, inaccessible, unstandardized) and their usefulness in
1.5.4-12 ;
ii •>
-------
impact analysis and prediction. The focus is often on collecting
information and data that are readily available rather than on what
is needed for analysis. The data requirements should be defined
by what is needed for assessment of the endpoints.
In addition to the seriousness of anticipated impacts, the level of
effort expended on description of the affected environment is
determined by cost and time factors. In general, the resources
available will be no more, arid often less, than the minimum that
is required by the decision process. Thus, it is important to focus
on those elements of the affected environment most pertinent to the
decision process and to use those methods that are most cost
effective in obtaining adequate data. Time may influence the
scope of this part of EA in several ways. For instance, the
environmental parameters of interest may vary from season to
season and even year to year and data collection to establish these
patterns may not be synchronized with the needs of the
decisionmaker.
Data collected must be amenable for use in models, experimental
designs or statistical analysis so that project-induced effects can be
separated from naturally occurring changes.
LINKAGES
Description of the affected environment should be structured
around the issues, valued resource components, and assessment
endpoints identified during initiation and scoping. The results of
data collection and any field studies are the basis for assessment of
potential environmental impacts of proposed actions and
alternatives. An appropriate, well-documented description of the
affected environment will aid the decisionmaker in the
identification and resolution of problems associated with the
proposed action. Moreover, it is the basis for post-decision
monitoring.
1.5.4-13
-------
;,:!: ':;,; • i( • • "_' . \ REFERENCES
BeanlaiidSj G. E., and P. N. Duinker. 1983. An Ecological Framework for
Environmental Assessment in Canada. Institute for Resource and
Environmental Studies, Dalhousie University, Halifax, Nova Scotia and
Federal Environmental Assessment Review Office, Hull, Quebec.
Bregman, J. I., and K. M. Mackenthun. 1992. Environmental Impact
Statements. Lewis Publishers, Inc. • 121 South Main Street, Chelsea,
/!J^; , ' • .... ..|: , ,p i . ,| i|(, , ,.| 1^,
Hirsch, A! 1980. The baseline study as a tool in environmental impact
^sessment. In: Biological Evaluation of Environmental Impacts, The
Prpceeciings of a Symposium. Fish and Wildlife Service FWS/OBS-
8d/l6. pp. 84-93.
,": " ' "'' 'l ' " • ;: ' ' ' • ' ,, , .'•'', • , • V:' , .. |, '•. , , .
McBrayer, J. F., S. B. Gough, R. C. Robertson, and H. E. Zittel. 1981.
Identifying alternatives at a reconnaisance level. Environmental Impact
Assessment Review 2:190-195.
Leopold, L. B., F. E. Clarke, B. B. Hanshaw, and J. R. Balsley. 1971. A
Procedure for Evaluating Environmental Impact. U.S. Department of the
Interior, Geological Survey Circular 645.
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1978. A Systems Approach to Ecological
B|seline Studies. FWS/OBS-78/21. 406 pp. Available from National
Technical Information Service, telephone (703) 487-4780.
,•" ii'"1' '"'fti . "l"ii::;;, .,„,', ' , ' ° ' i i ' , , ,,'::"" I,!,,, , i| " ,:jr , „,''•'•''
National Wildlife Federation. Annual Conservation Directory. National Wildh'fe
Federation, Washington, D.C., telephone (202) 797-6800.
1.5.4-14
-------
SOURCES OF ENVIRONMENTAL DATA
Federal Interagency Initiatives to Coordinate Environmental Data and Analysis
(Source: Council on Environmental Quality. 1993. Environmental Quality. 23rd
Annual Report)
Environmental Statistics Programs Managed by Agencies of the U.S. Government
(Source: Council on Environmental Quality. 1993. Environmental Quality. 23rd
Annual Report)
Summary and table of contents for the Manual of Federal Geographic Data Products
(Source: Federal Geographic Data Committee. 1993)
State of the Environment Reports and Statistical Compendia Published by
International Organizations (Source: Council on Environmental Quality. 1992.
Environmental Quality. 22nd Annual Report)
Table of contents for A Guide To Selected National Environmental Statistics In The
U.S. Government (Source: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 230-R-92-003.
April 1992)
1.5.5-1
*For purposes of this document, the term Environmental Assessment (EA) will refer to the
Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) process.
-------
,,'""
I \
IS .,1
-------
Federal Interagency Initiatives to Coordinate Environmental Data and
Analysis (Source: Council on Environmental Quality. 1993. Environmental
Quality. 23rd Annual Report)
Program
Lead Agency
Coverage
Interagency Committee on
Environmental Trends
CEQ
In 1991 CEQ established an interagency committee with the participation of all
agencies involved in environmental data to undertake development of a
framework for U.S. state-of-the-environment reporting.
National Acid Precipitation
Assessment Program 1990
(NAPAP)
CEQ
NAPAP, established by the 1980 Acid Precipitation Act, coordinates federally
funded research and assessment to develop a firm scientific basis for acid rain
policies. The Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990 extended NAPAP, which
monitors the influence of the Clean Air Act on environmental impacts.
Environmental Monitoring
and Assessment Program
(EMAP)
EPA
A long-term research, monitoring, and assessment program, initiated in 1988 to
provide regional and national reports on the conditions of U.S. ecological
resources. During the next five yean, EMAP monitoring networks will estimate
trends in national ecological indicators on a regional basis; monitor selected
indicators of natural and anthropogenic stresses; seek associations between
human-induced stresses and ecological conditions and provide periodic statistical
summaries and interpretive reports on status and trends for resource managers and
the public.
EPA Center for
Environmental Statistics
EPA
EPA Development Staff established the Center for Environmental Statistics to
gather environmental data from a variety of sources; address data quality and
statistical issues; and use data to provide information on environmental
conditions. The Center currently is situated within the EPA Environmental
Statistics and Information Division.
Intergovernmental
Monitoring Task Force
EPA and USCS
Established in 1991 by the EPA Office of Water and the USGS. The task force
coordinates efforts with NOAA, FWS, COE, USDA, OMB, and DOE to identify
and recommend solutions to water quality monitoring problems; establish a
national framework for water quality monitoring; agree on environmental
indicators; and share water quality data through system linkages and increased
quality assurance and control.
Federal Geographic Data
Committee (FGDC)
DOI
FGDC, with 14 departments and agencies promotes coordinated development,
use, and dissemination of surveying, mapping, and related spatial data.
Established by OMB Circular A-16, 'Coordination of Surveying, Mapping, and
Related Spatial Data Activities,' the committee stresses coordination and
standards.
Ocean Pollution Data and
Information Network
(OPDIN)
NOAA
A 10-year interagency effort by 11 federal agencies to improve accessibility and
usefulness of data and to increase communication and coordination on ocean and
Great Lakes pollution information; the network publishes information guides and
responds to requests for information.
FCCSET/CEES
IWGMDGC
OSTP
Within the President's Office of Science and Technology Policy (OSTP), the
Federal Coordinating Council for Science, Engineering and Technology
(FCCSET) established the Committee on Earth and Environmental Sciences
(CEES) as a forum to coordinate interagency programs, including the U.S. Global
Change Research Program (USGCRP). Chaired by NASA and NOAA, the
Interagency Working Group on Data Management for Global Change
(IWGDMGQ is developing recommendations on interagency management of
research data. In 1991 the National Research Council drafted a "U.S. Strategy
for Global Change Dels and Information Management."
1.5.5-3
-------
Ktif
Federal Interagency Initiatives to Coordinate Environmental Data and
Analysis (continued)
President's Water Quality
Initiative
Water Information
Coordination Program
(WICP)
National Resources
Inventory (NRI)
Foreat Health Monitoring
Program
Lead Agency
USDA
uses
USDA SoU
Conservation
Service
USDA Foreat
Service
Coverage
This initiative addresses nonpoint source contamination of surface water and
groundwaterby agricultural chemicals: 11 agencies, including TVA, USGS,
EPA, NOAA, FWS, and COE, comprise the working group on the Water
Quality. Cooperative programs include the USDA Management Systems
Evaluation Areas, the USGS National Water Quality Assessment, and the EPA
Midwest Agrichemical Surface/Subsurface Transport and Effects Research
project.
OMB Memorandum M-92-01 of December 10, 1991, established the Water
Information Coordination Program to include all federal organizations that fund,
collect, or use water resources information. WICP convenes an Interagency
Coordinating Committee for Water Information and a Federal Advisory
Committee on Water Data for Public Use. The program is establishing effective
working relationships with state and local agencies, Indian tribes, and the private
sector. WICP will plan, design, and operate a cost-effective national network for
water-data collection; develop uniform standards for water information collection,
management, and dissemination; establish a National Water Information
Clearinghouse; and annually report to OMB to document funding and program
activities.
This national multi-resource inventory is conducted every S yean to determine
status, condition, and trends of soil, water, and related resources NRI and
associated soils data are ujetHo formulate policy and assist in strategic planning
of conservation and environmental programs at national, regional, and local
levels.
This long-term monitoring program was started in 1990 to measure, interpret, and
report effects of forest pests, air pollution, other stresson, and management
methods on the health of U.S. forests. The program included 14 states in 1992
and will be expanded nationwide in future years. It has three increasingly
intensive phases: detection monitoring to determine annual differences from
baseline conditions or trends; in-depth evaluation monitoring to determine cause,
extent, and severity of detected changes; and intensive-site ecosystem monitoring
to provide detailed, long-term research data for predicting future conditions.
Cooperators include EPA, the National Association of State Foresters, and other
state and federal resource agencies.
1.5.5-4
-------
Federal Interagency Initiatives to Coordinate Environmental Data and
Analysis (continued)
Program
Lead Agency
Coverage
NOTE: The following abbreviations appear in the environmental data tables:
BLM
CEQ
COE
DOC
DOE
DO!
EC
EPA
FAO
FWS
NASA
NOAA
OMB
OSTP
RPA
USDA
USQS
Bureau of Land Management, Department of Interior
President's Council on Environmental Quality
U.S. Department of Defense, Army Corps of Engineers
U.S. Department of Commerce
U.S. Department of Energy
U.S. Department of the Interior
European Community
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization
Fish and Wildlife Service, Depanment of the Interior
National Aeronautics and Space Administration
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, Department of Commerce
President's Office of Management and Budget
President's Office of Science and Technology Policy
Forest and Rangeland Renewable Natural Resources Policy Act
U.S. Department of Agriculture
U.S. Geological Survey, Depanment of the Interior
1.5.5-5
-------
'Oil;:"1'"
':'.,!; '•' i'ii." I if. 'I:?! ' ,;LI
1.5.5-6
-------
Environmental Statistics Programs Managed by Agencies of the U.S.
Government (Source: Council on Environmental Quality. 1993. Environmental
Quality. 23rd Annual Report)
Program
Major Uses of Land in
the United States
Agricultural Chemical
Usage Statistics
Pollution Abatement
Control Expenditure*
(PAC)
Energy and
Environmental
Database
Forest Insect and
Disease Conditions in
the United States
RPA Assessment of the
Forest and Rangeland
Situation
Land Areas of the
National Forest System
Tree Planting in the
United States
Survey of Pollution
Abatement Costs and
Expenditures
Sponsor
USDA Economic
Research Service
USDA National
Agricultural Statistics
Service and Economic
Research Service
DOE Bureau of
Economic Analysis
DOC Bureau of the
Census, Center for
Economic Studies
(CES)
USDA Forest Service
USDA Forest Service
USDA Forest Service
USDA Forest Service
DOC Bureau of the
Census
Coverage
Estimated acreage and inventories of major U.S. land
uses and of cropland used for crops.
Estimated treatment acreage and application quantity of
fertilizer nutrients and pesticide ingredients applied to
field crops, vegetables, and fruits; includes state
estimates for those states where the commodities are
predominantly produced.
Summary of all spending for PAC by business,
government, and consumers, and by type.
Census Bureau and EPA data files have been integrated,
yielding longitudinal plant and firm level data on
production inputs, outputs, costs, energy consumption,
pollution emissions, and pollution abatement
expenditures.
Data for U.S. federal, ntate, and private forestlands;
data analyses by region, ownership, type of
insect/disease, area affected, trend data available.
Inventory with trend information on extent, condition,
ownership, and composition of U.S. forests; wildlife
habitat, forage production, and other resource
characteristics.
Data on extent and characteristics of forest, range, and
related lands in the National Forest System.
Summary of tree planting in the United States.
Annual operating costs and capital expenditures for
pollution abatement activities in manufacturing
industries.
Frequency/Most
Recent Report
Intervals of major
land uses coincide
with the Census of
Agriculture; 1991
report with 1987
data. Annual reports
for cropland used for
crops; 1992 report
with preliminary
1992 data.
Annual collection for
field crops; 1992
report with 1991
data. Biennial
reports for vegetables
and fruits; 1991
report for vegetables
with 1990 data and
1992 report for fruits
with 1991 data.
Annual reports; 1992
report with 1990
data.
Annual collection
Annual collection;
1992 report with
1991 data.
5-year cycle; 1989
reports with 1987
data.
Annual reports.
Annual reports; 1992
report with 1991
data.
Annual collection.
1.5.5-7
-------
.
Environmental Statistics Programs (continued)
Progr&iB
Classified Shellftshing
Water*
Fisheries Statistics
Program
National Climatic Data
Center (NCDC)
National
Occanographic Data
Center (NODC)
National Geophysical
Data Center (NGDC)
National Coastal
Pollutant Discharge
Inventory Program
Sponsor
NOAA
NOAA
NOAA
NOAA
NOAA
NOAA
Coverage
Monitors classified shellfishing waters as indicators of
bacterial water quality nationwide; classifies waters for
commercial harvest of oysters, clams, and mussels
based on actual or potential pollution sources and
coliform bacteria levels in surface waters.
National compilation, analysis, and dissemination of
biological, economic, and sociological statistics from
U.S. commercial (domestic and high seas) and
recreational fisheries. Mostly marine; historical time
series, some dating back to 1800s; some world (FAO,
EC) fishery data, foreign nation data on fisheries in
U.S. Waters. Data types include landings, prices and
fishing efforts; number of vessels, gear and fishermen;
annual processed products; trade in fisheries products;
species composition; length frequencies; per capita
consumption; and aquacuhure.
NCDC collects, processes, archives, and disseminates
worldwide meteorological and climatological data from
a global network of stations; coverage is global, land
and sea, primarily of U.S. dependencies, especially for
summarized data.
NODC collects, processes archives, and disseminated
such worldwide oceanographic data as marine biology,
marine pollution, wind and waves, surface and
subsurface currents, and temperature.
NGDC collects, processes, archives, and disseminates
such worldwide geophysical data as solid earth
geophysics, earthquake seismology, geomagnetic
surveys, marine geology and geophysics, solar-
terrestrial physics, and glaciology.
Compiles pollutant-loading estimates for point,
nonpoint, and riverine sources in coastal counties or the
200-mile Exclusive Economic Zone. Such sources
discharge to the estuarine, coastal, and oceanic waters
of the contiguous United Stales, excluding the Great
Lakes.
Frequency /Most
Recent Report
5-year surveys; most
recent 1990.
Collect
daily/monthly/yearly
information from
primary and
secondary sources;
monthly, quarterly,
and annual
publications; user
requests via hard
copy, magnetic
tapes, diskettes.
CD-ROM, PC
Bulletin Board.
Responds to over
33,000 user requests
per year; these
records date from
mid-nineteenth
century to present.
Responds to over
10,000 user requests
per yean records
date from late-
nineteenth century to
present.
Responds to 11,000
user requests per
year; records date
from mid-nineteenth
century to present.
East, West and Gulf
Coast estimates are
for 1982, 1984, and
1987 respectively.
In 1993 estimates
will be updated to
1991 for all three
marine coasts.
1.5.5-8
"I' • H' ! | " 'J
-------
Environmental Statistics Programs (continued)
Program
National Eituarine
Inventory
Month and State
Current Emissions
Trends
National Energy
Information Center
Carbon Dioxide
Information Analysis
Center
Integrated Data Base
Program
National Wetlands
Inventory
Gap Analysis
National Contaminant
Biomonitoring Program
North American
Breeding Bird Survey
Sponsor
NOAA
DOEArgonne
National Laboratory
DOE Information
Administration
DOE Oak Ridge
National Laboratory
DOE
FWS
FWS
FWS
FWS
Coverage
Compiles, evaluates, and assesses information on 102
estuaries in the continental United States, including data
on salinity, bottom sediments, freshwater inflow,
pesticide use, land use, distribution of estuarine fishes
and invertebrates, population, water quality, recreation
use, and wetlands.
Emissions estimates for NOx, SO2, and VOCs by
month and slate from 1975 to the present for 68
emission source groups.
Collects and publishes data; prepares analyses on
energy production, consumption, prices, and resources;
makes projections of energy supply and demand.
Compiles, evaluates, and distributes information related
to carbon dioxide.
Maintains data on all spent radioactive fuel and waste in
the United States.
Develops comprehensive information on the
characteristics and extent of U.S. wetlands resources;
wetlands map coverage for 70% of lower 48 stales,
22% of Alaska, and all of Hawaii, Puerto Rico, and
Guam.
Develops standardized distribution maps of surface
vegetation, terrestrial vertebrates, and endangered
species in the lower 48 states and Hawaii.
Documents temporal and geographic trends in
concentrations of persistent environmental contaminants
that may threaten fish and wildlife; covers major U.S.
rivers and Great Lakes.
Provides uniform basis for assessing long-term trends in
avian populations throughout North America; total
number of individuals by species, survey route, and
state.
Frequency /Most
Recent Report
Many projects are
ongoing assessments; •
others involve a
snapshot view of
existing data. Topics
of the Coastal Trends
series include a
summary report on
U.S. estuaries
(1990), coastal
wetlands (1991),
housing starts
(1992), coastal
pollution (expected
1993), oil spills
(expected 1993).
Monthly; 1975 to
present.
Annual reports.
Data collection
ranges from hourly
to decadal.
Annual data
collection and
reporting.
Continuous wetlands
trend for lower 48
states; statistical
estimates of U.S.
wetlandi acreage
beginning in 1990.
First analysis, 1988
national assessment
to be completed in
1998, to be updated
at 5-year intervals.
2-to-4 year intervals.
2-year intervals.
1.5.5-9
-------
Environmental Statistics Programs (continued)
I!1 ;:
I 'Silly,
'• I
Program
Waterfowl Breeding
Population and Habiut
Statistics and
Information Services
Public Land Statistics
National Stream
Quality Accounting
network (NASQAN)
and National
Hydrolojic Benchmark
Network
National Trend*
Network
National Water
Conditions Reporting
System
National Land Use and
Cover Program
Water Data Program
National Water UK
Information Program
Sponsor
FWS
Bureau of Mines
BLM
uses
uses
uses
uses
uses
uses
Coverage
Provides annual breeding population estimates;
measures breeding habitat changes over major portion
of duck breeding range in North America.
Collects, analyzes, and publishes data on metal
production and consumption, including scrap and waste.
Collects summary statistics of land ownership in the
United States and BLM natural resource management
programs at the state level.
NASQAN provides a national uniform basis for
assessing large-scale, long-term trends in physical,
chemical, and biological characteristics of waters;
monitors for pH, alkalinity, sulfate, nitrate, phosphorus,
calcium, magnesium, sodium, potassium, chloride,
suspended sediment, fecal conform bacteria, fecal
streptococcal bacteria, dissolved oxygen, dissolved
oxygen deficit, and trace elements; the Benchmark
Network monitors water quality in surface waters
largely unaffected by human activities.
Monitors atmospheric deposition under National Acid
Precipitation Assessment Program (NAPAP); 150
stations predominantly in rural areas, in combination
wilh USDA National Atmospheric Deposition Program
(NADP); almost 200 sites nationwide.
Collects and analyzes streamftow data, groundwater
levels, reservoir contents, and limited water-quality data
from S sites on major riven.
Includes land-use and land-cover maps and digitized
data. Statistics by political units, hydrologic units, and
census county subdivisions are available. Classes
include urban or built-up land, agricultural land,
rangeland, forestland, water areas, wetland, ban-en
land, tundra, and perennial snow and ice. Maps are
available for most of the country at 1 :2SO,000 scale.
Nearly 60,000 water-data stations throughout the nation
are used to obtain records on stream-flow, stage
(height), reservoir and lake stage and storage,
groundwater levels, well and spring discharge, and
quality on surface water and groundwater. Data, stored
in the WATSTORE database, are available in machine
readable form or as computer printed tables or graphs,
statistical analyses, and digital plots.
Determines purposes for U.S. fresh and saline surface
water and groundwaler withdrawn, water consumed
during use; and water returned to source after use.
Frequency /Most
Recent Report
Annual surveys and
reports.
Monthly, quarterly,
and annually.
Annual reports.
Yearly data
summaries for each
state.
NAPAP publications.
Published in month
newsletter. National
Water Conditions.
USGS publications.
Published by water
year for each state.
National
compilations every 5
years; most recent.
1.5.5-10
-------
Environmental Statistics Programs (continued)
PrOgTSQl
Water Resources
Assessment Program
Earth Observing
SyAem
National Air Pollution
Control Program
Compreheniive
EavironmenUl
Response,
Compensation, and
Liability Information
System
Environmental
Radiation Ambient
Monitoring System
(ERAMS)
Hazardous and
Nonhazardous Surveys
Toxics Release
Inventory
Water Pollution
Control Act Section
305(b) Assessments
Ambient Water
Monitoring
Program/STORET
Sponsor
USGS
NASA
EPA Office of Air
Quality Planning and
Standards
EPA Office of
Emergency and
Remedial Response
EPA Office of
Radiation Programs
EPA Office of Solid
Waste
EPA Office of Toxic
Substances
EPA Office of Water
EPA Office of Water
Coverage
Summarizes statistics on slate and national water
resources for USGS biennial report, National Water
Summary, each report oriented to water resource theme,
such as groundwater quality.
Measures key environmental variables using series of
unmanned satelttes; part of NASA Mission to Planet
Earth program; EODIS, iu data and information
system, will coordinate with the Global Change Data
and Information System, which includes the NOAA
data and information system.
Collects and analyzes data on ambient air quality and
air pollution levels and compares them to National
Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS).
Contains information on over 30,000 abandoned or
uncontrolled hazardous waste sites.
Monitors radiation in air, drinking water, surface water,
and milk.
Collect data through survey and regulated entity reports
on hazardous and non-hazardous (solid) wastes
generation and management; information on regulated
entities and the waste volumes they generate and
manage.
Mandatory annual inventory of releases of 328 toxic
chemicals to air, water, land, and off-site disposal from
more than 17,000 manufacturing facilities across the
country. Material is available on CD-ROM.
Compiles state reports on water quality status of surface
water and groundwater,, as required by section 305(b),
Federal Water Pollution Control Act; the states prepare
assessments using various monitoring data.
largest database for water quality information; data
contained in STORET with over 170 million data points
from states and federal agencies, such as USGS, on
surface water and groundwater quality, sediments,
streamflow, and fish tissue contamination.
Frequency/Most
Recent Report
Biennial; 1991 report
covered floods and
droughts.
NASA publications.
Annual reports on air
quality and emission
estimates.
Updated on-line.
Sampling intervals
from twice weekly to
bi-annual, based on
analyses, at 332
stations; since 1973.
Current data is from
1985 biennial report
and two 1986
surveys.
Annual reports.
1990 biennial report
as of 1988.
Updated on-line.
1.5.5-11
-------
Environmental Statistics Programs (continued)
Program
Public Water System
Supervision Program
National Pollutant
Discharge Elimination
System Program
Municipal Construction
PiQgiaui
Coastal and ocean
Protection Programs
Sponsor
EPA Office of Water
EPA Office of Water
EPA Office of Water
EPA Office of Water
Coverage
Contains information about public water supplies
(PWSt) and their compliance with monitoring
requirements, maximum contaminant level (MCL)
regulations, and other requirements of the Safe
Drinking Water Act; data is stored in the Federal
Reporting Data System.
Tracks permit compliance and enforcement status of
facilities covered by water pollution permits;
information is contained in the Permit Compliance
System. (PCS)
Inventory of existing or proposed publicly owned
treatment works (POTWs) that need construction or
renovation to meet Clean Water Act requirements;
information is maintained in the Needs Survey System.
Covers environmental data (water quality, biological,
permitting, environmental impact data) for discharges
and pollutant loadings to coastal waters as well as ocean
dumping; information contained in Ocean Data
Evaluation System (ODES).
Frequency/Most
Recent Report
Quarterly state and
EPA regional
reports.
Monthly facility
reports entered on an
ongoing basis.
2-year update from
each state; biennial
report submitted to
the Congress.
Biennial reports to
the Congress for
National Estuary
Program; annual
reports to the Ocean
Dumping Program;
special reports on
coastal programs.
Note: Neither this table nor the source document, which describes 72 federal programs, are exhaustive. For instance, USDA also
maintains mission-oriented statistics in such areas as crops, snowpack, soil erosion, national forests management, and wildfires. The
DOC Bureau of Census maintains social, demographic, and economic statistics relevant tot he environment. NOAA maintains statistics
on marine resources and coastal wetlands. BLM maintains statistics for ELM lands, including condition, wildlife, minerals, and use;
and NFS collects comparable statistics on the status of national parks. The Bureau of Mines collects, interprets, and publishes data on
production, consumption, and trade of over 100 minerals. FWS maintains data on FWS lands and conducts surveys of fishing,
hunting, and wildlife-associated recreation every S years, with the most recent report in 1991. USGS maps national land use and land
cover, and EPA conducts regional and other pollution surveys. DOT compiles highway and other transportation sutistics, and the
U.S. Coast Guard maintains data on marine pollution spills.
Source: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Center for Environmental Statistics, Guide to Selected National Environmental
Statistics in the U.S. Government (draft), (Washington, DC; EPA, 1992).
1.5.5-12
1
-------
Summary and Table of Contents for the Manual of Federal Geographic Data
Products (Source: Federal Geographic Data Committee. 1993)
Manual of Federal Geographic Data Products
The Manual of Federal Geographic Data Products describes Federal geographic data products
that are national in scope and commonly distributed to the public. Geographic data products
include maps, digital data, aerial photography and multispectral imagery, earth science, and
other geographically-referenced data sets. Federal agencies were encouraged to list only those
geographic data products that are supported by an office to which the public could make
inquiries and place orders. Federal agencies also were encouraged to list only those geographic
data that would be available by January 1993.
Data products are described in a standardized format and grouped by producing agency. A
cross-reference matrix is provided to help readers find products by data type.
The products listed in the Manual include only those that currently are distributed by the
agencies. Readers interested in historical Federal geographic data products should contact the
Reference Services Staff of the National Archives and Records Administration at (202) 501-
5579. The Map and Geography Division of the Library of Congress also has an extensive
collection of current and historical geographic data products from Federal and non-Federal
sources. The Division can be reached at (202) 707-MAPS.
While much effort was made to ensure that the Manual is comprehensive, inevitably there will
be products that were overlooked. In addition, rapidly changing geographic data technologies,
especially digital technologies, are resulting in new products and new forms of existing products.
Readers should contact the offices listed in the Manual to inquire about the availability of new
products and references to other Federal geographic data. The FGDC intends to revise the
Manual approximately every 2 years.
Readers are invited to provide corrections and to suggest other Federal products or information
for inclusion in future editions of the Manual. Readers also are encouraged to comment on the
usefulness of the Manual, and to suggest improved methods of presenting the information.
For more information about the FGDC, its activities, the Manual, or to be added to the
newsletter mailing list, please contact:
Federal Geographic Data Committee Secretariat
U.S. Geological Survey
590 National Center
Reston, VA 22092
USA
(703) 648-4533
1.5.5-13
-------
Table of Contents
!" ; '' . T i" ,,-;i:'Hi,1
• ,v .r,,; '• i:; Preface . . „.,',. . . . . ._. ...;.. .". .'.•.... I . .-. .."....; iii"
Federal Geographic Data Committee Overview v
Data Product Keyword Matrix vii
1 United States Department of Agriculture
Agriculture Stabilization and Conservation Service 1-1
Forest Service •. 1-5
I i i1 - ,;TI; ./.cj :^ •*»«•• •» M« 4 «••_,- <»••. • . .• • - • , _„
V5L: ,;::; , I:,,;, :;" Soil Conservation Service '. . .'.". . . . .'.". . . :.". . . 1-21
'fj I* '• 'j. ' «*',; '"; . • tsv "HI • : , jr.'-i /i ! i, ,-: ' ,. -. •• '.'•' ;' '. ' ."','"' ,!„
2 United States Department of Commerce
^.^-,'.:, : ,.', Bureau^ of the Census i">i'". ".......".."....'....'. ". . .". . . .•. . . .2-1
Bureau of Economic Analysis . . . . ."'. . . ........ .2-31
National Environmental Satellite, Data, and Information Service 2-35
;!"" "5. ' .• .'. National Ocean Service^ ' 2-85
:: ;";::":; ;: " . •;"' •• National^Weather Service"'.' ..."....'.'.'.'.". .,.."......"... 2-111
'!«, :',;'; 3^ \ '_ ,1^11161'States Department of Defense " " ' '
Defense Mapping Agency ..... . . ........................... .3-1
L"ir :. ., ".;; „ ': 'r'"1 '^',*' '., '. .',:,: "":, ," v*'":"' •" """ ••• |"j •' •- •• •• •
4 United States Department of Health and Human Services
Centers for Disease Control 4-1
"' ;.» ',-! ' ' . «"".:i .'..'•"". ',""m, uril .•'; :"i 'i,'. '] " , „;,,-';. " .. . ' "'" , "' ". '" .. ; " ; ,' '""-"' ' ""-"' ' •.•: .' • ,
5 United States Department of the Interior
Bureau of Land Management 5-1
Bureau of Mines 5-29
Bureau of Reclamation .5-33
Minerals Management Service . . .'. .... . . . . . 5-37
National Park Service 5-45
United States Fish and Wildlife Service 5-51
United States Geological Survey . . '...'.. '.".. I .'I'."....;.... 5-59
United States Department of Transportation
Federal Highway Administration
,6-1
7 Independent Agencies
Federal Emergency Management Agency . . 7-1
National Aeronautics and Space Administration 7-5
•IK I'M ; • ,„, Tifiinf" il i '•• ' "i. . •""• . '»! • , "iiiin ":iii:i '" •
Tennessee Valley Authority ". . J .. . . . . . . . . 7-13
Appendix A: Reader Response Form '.... J ...'.' A-l
i.5.5-14
I (I;,1
"I I
-------
State of the Environment Reports and Statistical Compendia Published by
International Organizations (Source: Council on Environmental Quality. 1992.
Environmental Quality. 22nd Annual Report)
Commission of the European Communities (CEC)
CEC, The State of the Environment in the European Community 1986, (Luxembourg: CEC, 1987). Earlier editions were published in 1977 uvd
1979.
Eunxut, Boric Statistics of the Community, annual (Luxembourg: CEC, 1990).
Eurostat, Environment Statistics 1989, annual (Luxembourg: CEC, 1990).
Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD)
OECD, Environmental Data Compendium 1991, (Paris: OECD, 1991). Earlier version* were publUhed in 1984 (pilot), 1985, and 1987.
OECD, The Suite of the Environment, (Paris: OECD, 1991). Previous editions were published in 1979 and 1985.
United Nations
A. L. Dahl and L. L. Baumgart, The State of the Environment in the South Pacific, (Geneva, Switzerland: UNEP, 1983).
United Nations Economic and Social Commission for Asia and the Pacific, State of the Environment in Asia and the Pacific, (Bangkok:
UNESCAP, 1985).
United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP), Environmental Data Report 1991-92, biennial (Oxford, England: Basil Blackwell, 1991).
This report is coproduced with King* College, London; the World Resources Innitute in Washington, D.C.; and the U.K. Department of the
Environment. It was intended to complement the more easily understood World Resources Report.
UNEP, State of the World Environments, annual (Nairobi: UNEP, 1991). The 1982 and 1987 reports were also published as, respectively, M.
W. Holdgate, M. Kassas, and G. F. White, eds., The World Environment 1972-1982, (Dublin: Tycooly International, 1982); and E. H-Hinnawi
and M. H. Haihmi, The State of the Environment, (Guildford, England: BuUerworth-Hcinemann, 1987).
UNEP, State of the Worid Environments, annual (Nairobi: UNEP, 1991). The 1982 and 1987 reports were also published as, respectively, M.
W. Holdgate, M. Kassas, and G. F. White, eds., The World Environment 1972-1982, (Dublin: Tycooly International, 1982); and E. El-Hinnawi
and M. H. Hashmi, The State of the Environment, (Guildford, England: Butterwonh-Heinemann, 1987).
UNEP, The State of the Marine Environment: UNEP Regional Seas Programme, (Nairobi: UNEP, 1990). The following regions were covered
for the yean indicated: West and Central Africa (1984), East Africa (1980, 1982, 1984, and 1985), Kuwait (1985), South Asia (1985), East
Asia (1985), Red Sea and Gulf of Aden (1985), Indian Ocean (1985), and Ocecnia and the Pacific (1985).
United Nations Statistical Office and United Nations Economic Commission for Europe, Environmental Statistics in Europe and North America:
An Experimental Compendium, (New York: UNSO and UNECE, 1987).
Worid Bank
Worid Bank, The World Bank and the Environment, (Washington, DC; Worid Bank, 1990).
Worid Bank, World Development Report 1991, annual, (Oxford, England: Oxford University Press, 1991).
World Resources Institute
A.L. Hammond, ed., Worid Resources 1990-1991, biennial, (Oxford, England: Oxford University Press, 1990). This publication is coproduced
with UNEP and the International Institute for Environment and Development.
Worid Resources Institute. The 1992 Information Please Environmental Almanac, (Boston: HoughtonMifflin, 1991).
Source: I. Parker and C. Hope, "The state of the environment: a survey of reports from around the world," Environment 34(1):20. (Heldref
Publications).
1.5.5-15
-------
1IU
aw1 UFIijjjiu riii;"11,;111,,lll:
::u "(lull
'! FJ« 'Hi
"., i
: ,; i, it { ;-!„,.-
,
"*!| '!|!'
1,5.5-16
-------
United States
Environmental Protection
Agency
Policy, Planning,
And Evaluation
(PM-223)
230-R-92-003
April 1992
A Guide To Selected National
Environmental Statistics
In The U. S. Government
-------
"Tin;*" i"ii PSi'li'lBBi It,1*"!1"1 iJ'IB'BBBii'1
i in iniiiniii1'1!!" •' i's w lira .ivini ; in;"1 '• liiiiiii; mr r K < •:' .!!"«' HI <'' n1"";', ni« ifiiiipsiii11'. 111 n >'"' "»ni; i!1":», >\ • iiKiiir1 iiiiiiiiiii!iliii!ii
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Statistical Programs
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS iii
FOREWORD v
TABLE OF CONTENTS vii
INTRODUCTION xi
DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
Economic Research Service
Major Uses of Land in the United States 1
Soil Conservation Service
National Resources Inventory 3
U.S. Forest Service
Forest Insect and Disease Conditions in the United States 5
Forest Inventory and Analysis 6
Forest Service Range Management Information System 8
Land Areas of the National Forest System 9
Recreation Information Management System 10
Tree Planting in the United States 11
Wildland Fire Statistics 12
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
Bureau of the Census
Farm and Ranch Irrigation Survey ..._. 13
Annual Surveys of Government Finances and Government Employment 14
Decennial Census of Population 16
National and Subnational Population Estimates and National and State Population Projections 18
Survey of Pollution Abatement Costs and Expenditures 20
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
Classified Shellfishing Waters 21
Fisheries Statistics Program 22
Living Marine Resources - 23
National Climatic Data Center 25
National Coastal Pollutant Discharge Inventory Program 27
National Status and Trends Program 29
DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY
Argonne National Laboratory
Month and State Current Emissions Trends 31
Energy Information Administration
National Energy Information Center 32
Oak Ridge National Laboratory
Carbon Dioxide Information Analysis Center 33
Integrated Data Base Program 35
SELECTED ENVIRONMENTAL STATISTICS IN THE U.S. GOVERNMENT PAGE vii
1.5.5-19
-------
DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES
National Center for Health Statistics
Health and Nutrition Examination Surveys 1 1
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR "' '' : '' ^''''" '"' '•'" '••••' ' '*'.• ^
Bureau of Land Management " " ': •• •<' '•: • •• - !•••. •. , • , , , , .; ril!
Public Lands Statistics 38
Range Site Inventory ... .«... 39
Timber Sale Information System 40
" Bureau of Mines " ' ' " ' ' " " ' ••• r ..
Minerals Information Program '.." ......:...:.......,,,... 41
National Park Service
Master Deed Listing 43
National Park Service Gaseous Pollutant Monitoring Network 44
National Park Service Visibility Monitoring Network 45
National Recreational Trails, Long-Distance Trail Management, and National Trail Inventory and Plan . 46
National Wild and Scenic Rivers System j 48
Public Use Analysis and Reporting Program 1 49
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
National Contaminant Biomonitoring Program .50
National Survey of fishing, Hunting, and Wildlife-Associated Recreation 52
National Wetlands Inventory ........l...l..J.....r.........;........i.,..;............ ..... t 54
North American Breeding Bird Survey '. 56
w'. / ' U.S. Fish and WilJlife Service Lands ...'I...."...."........::..."1::.'.','.:".".
Waterfowl Breeding Population and Habitat Survey ........ ..7 "..
t:'1' tLS. Geological Survey ' ' " " ' ' '" ':;I" <"•••)• .... ,
National Hydrolonc Benchmark Network Program 59
aii' . i i mini :' ,1 , „ .
National Land Use and Land Cover Mapping Program ....."..'.'.. "..".". s •.-. 61
, ' ' I II II II ..!.. .'•: -i i ,;.;[ , -. , - . „ . . . , , „ „ ,, ,
National Stream Quality Accounting Network .....":'."............: •: -.- -. 62
National Trends Network .64
National Water Conditions Reporting System '. : 66
. ' National Water Use Information Program 67
Water Resources Assessment Program ;..................:.. . -.\ 69
" ;"^ '* '-' '•". "' »> '.-. > . • •. - , ,„ „. .,,.: • ;. j; ,.". ;• , .„.;. r
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION H
Federal Highway Administration
Highway Statistics j 70
Research and Special Programs Administration
National Transportation Statistics 72
• '- U.S. Coast Guard " •••••. „ .... ,(| , _, _^ _
Marine Pollution Retrieval System :.....: : 73
, ,, i ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY ' ' ' ' " "
Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards
National Air Pollution Control Program 74
PAGE viii
SELECTED ENvlRONMEWAL STATISTICS IN THE U.S. GOVERNMENT
1.5,5-20
-------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY (Continued)
Office of Ecological Processes and Effects Research
Environmental Monitoring and Assessment Program, Long-Term Monitoring Project 75
National Surface Water Survey 76
Office of Emergency and Remedial Response
Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Information System 78
Office of Radiation Programs
Environmental Radiation Ambient Monitoring System 79
Office of Solid Waste
Hazardous and Non-Hazardous Waste Surveys 80
Office of Toxic Substances
Toxics Release Inventory 82
INDEX OF KEYWORDS 83
INDEX OF DATA PROGRAMS 85
SELECTED ENVIRONMENTAL STATISTICS IN THE U.S. GOVERNMENT PAGE ix
1.5.5-21
-------
•HI
"ii- ,/!'(
' -'i'':'!;,."
11 i S"!i
lit ,
•I: :,. I'll!
I'f;/:
i V. >, ji
i ' ' ni ilEliiF i'III'
' ,. I ' ; :!•• ":,
'
ill!!; !ii," TlHi!
M ' IPilil.
,ij,fli ' i; ,,isi"i:i
-------
COMPUTER-AIDED ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
Luhar, A. K., and P. Khanna. 1988. Computer-aided rapid environmental impact
assessment. Environmental Impact Assessment Review 8:9-25.
1.5.6-1
*For purposes of this document, the term Environmental Assessment (EA) will refer to the
Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) process.
-------
':,«' I 'I! I"i|f "'"' ', ' ll!'"1'!" '."IS'
Mi
,!' i. I "' Hi,,,i1 ,,ii"i 'in i1,1!!1,.!!1!1 •
M| „ i
»! 1 !. '!!F!' . -I" 'Nil!!1!: IIH
1 ' l'"!'l!! "if
Ill Ji '1
-------
ENVIRON IMPACT ASSESS REV I98H;8:9-2S
COMPUTER-AIDED RAPID ENVIRONMENTAL
IMPACT ASSESSMENT
ASHOK K. LUHAR AND P. KHANNA
o-,
Environmental impact assessment of a project attempts to bring about compatibility
between ecology and economics. A computer-aided, quantitative and rapid meth-
odology for environmental impact assessment is presented in this paper. The l
projects, plans, and policies must now be given the same emphasis thai economic
assessments have been accorded thus far. It is here that environmental impact
assessment (EIA) must play a crucial role in resolving the contlicts between
developmental objectives and the concern for environmental quality.
id IOBR Fltrvii-r Srlrnrc Pnhlnhin* Cn . Inc.
-------
10
ASHOK K, LUIIAR AND P. KIIANNA
: TABLE 1, Identification information used as input
Environmental Componenl
Infomiaiion Needed
Air Existing air quality, meteorology, topography, emission rates of
different pollutants, some physical parameters of the project
components, etc.
I Water Existing water quality, aquatic ecosystem of receiving body, water
= temperature, water flow and chemical composition of effluent,
! physical parameters of the receiving body, etc.
= Land Present state of the sail, porosity of the soil, other physical and
chemical properties of the soil, etc.
Biological Existing slate of the biological environment (flora and fauna) of the
area, population and its distribution, etc. ^
Socioecnnomic Demography, ethnic composition of the area, age distribution of
the people, etc.
i Noise Type of noise sources (vis-a-vis point, line, etc.) and their relative
intensity, etc.
Notwithstanding the fact that EIA is conceived to be a valuable planning and
decision-making tool, in practice it suffers from several limitations, particularly
; its major requirements for time, finance, expertise, and data. It is therefore not
•" surprising that most developing countries have resorted to rudimentary ap-
proaches (eg, checklists) in the absence of objective screening and scoping
-i. criteria, guidelines for rapid EIA, and tools for prediction and evaluation. In
: addition, there is the problem of quantifying intangible impacts of the project.
With a view to obviating some of the aforementioned limitations, a rapid and
quantitative methodology for EIA is presented in this paper. The present con-
tribution provides an approach, and therefore no attempt has been made to
incorporate all parameters and rigorous mathematical models available in the
literature. However, it does include the cost of mitigating detrimental environ-*
mental impacts.
Definition of EIA
Many definitions of EIA have been provided (Battelle 1978; UNEP 1978; Munn
1979), but none of them may be accepted as complete. The work presented in
this paper is based on the definition given by Heer and Hagerty (1977):
EIA consists in establishing quantitative values for selected parameters which indicate the quality
of the environment before, during and after an action.
M
lia
Computer-Aided Rapid EIA
The technique "resented here is a rapid EIA technique for assessing impacts on
the major et ^jviental components: air, water, land, noise, biological, and
socioeconom.^Pis most relevant to developing countries.
COMPUTCR-AIOeO RAPI0 EHVIROWMENTAt IMPACT ASSESSMENT
The process of EIA can be divided into three parts: identifir
and evaluation of impacts (Canter 1977). The computer a'
prepared based on these general steps of EIA.
I
Identification
The identification part of EIA involves the description of existing environmental K!
components, the project, and the project area. The description included in emu i|
putcr-aided methodology is presented in Table I. The identification of significant ^
impacts in individual cases is project specific and no attempt has been made in £j
this paper to incorporate these as the objective here is to suggest general purpose:
methodology.
Prediction
Prediction is essentially the quantification step. The impacts of project activities J"
are predicted through mathematical models and other predictors of environmental fj
quality. It should be noted that a model should be calibrated, verified, ami
validated before use. h
Unfortunately, in developing countries, nonavailability of sufficient data ham "-
pers the efforts to calibrate, verify, and validate (he models. The attempt in this
paper, therefore, is to incorporate models with limited data requirements. Smli
an approach is considered rational in the context of rapid assessment.
II
Evaluation
In the evaluation step, impacts are converted into environmental quality predic-
tors with recourse to value function graphs. Value function graphs have heen
prepared for different environmental components based on the aesthetic, cmi
ronmental, and health risks of different pollutants and their standards. The inaih |j
ematica! forms of value function curves have been formulated through polymmtial||
regression and incorporated in the computer program. Suhindiccs arc converted!
into a single index by taking their weighted sum. The weights given to diHeienij
environmental risks and costs for various environmental components depend <>n-
the type of project under assessment. «
A Computer Package for Rapid EIA V
ill
A computer algorithm is depicted in Figure I. The algorithm is designed nijj
keeping with the nonavailability of complete databases in developing count!if1- jj
Instead, the program uses simple identification information presented in T:il>l
-------
ASIIOK K. LUHAR AND P. Klf ANNA
(71-
(A) IDENTIFICATION
1READ INPUT PARAMETERS FOB PREDICTION OP IMPACTS
OK Ain, WATER, LAND, BIOLOGICAL AND SOCIOBCOHOMICx
ENVIRONMENT
READ INPUT PARAHETERS FOR PREDICTION OP NOISE LEVEL '
READ EIA MATRIX (MAXIMUM SCORE I.E. WEIOHTAGB
GIVEN TO ABOVE ENVIRONMENTAL COMPONENTS INCLUDING '
NOISE FOR DIFFERENT ENVIRONMENTAL RISKS)
READ CPST MATRIX (MAXIMUM I.E. WEIOHTAOE GIVEN TO THE ABATEMENT\
COST (MINUS RESOURCE RECOVERY! FOR THE ABOVE ENVIRONMENTAL
COMPONENTS INCLUDING NOISE) F(,k
READ REAL COST MATRIX (REAL SCORE GIVEN TO THE ABATEMENT COST
(MINUS RESOURCE RECOVERY) FOR THE ABOVE ENVIRONMENTAL COMPONENTS
INCLUDING NOISE) X
AIR quALirr ANALYSIS BEGINS
(ONE RECEPTOR AND ANY NUMBER
OF SOURCES AND POLLUTANTS)
FUNCTION (STACK HEIGHT
CORRECTION FOR STACK
DOVNHASH i
HIND SPEED CORRECTION AT
STACK HEIGHT
CALCULATE EFFECTIVE STACK
HEIGHT
IS
EFFECTIVE
STACK HEIGHTS-MIXING HEIGHT
OR
RECEPTOR HEICHT>MIXIHS HEIGHT
7
CONCENTRATION • 0
FIGURE 1. General Flow Chart of Computer-Aided Rapid Environmental Impact As-
sessment. (A) Identification; (B) Prediction; (C) Cost-Effective Evaluation.
COMPUTER-AIDED RAPID ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT
CALCULATE CONCEN-
TRATION FOR STABLE
CASE (UNLIMITED
MIXING )
CORRECT THE CONCENTRATIOH FOR
CHEMICAL ATTENUATION
12)
O)
CALCULATE TOTAL CONCENTRAT-
IOH AT A RECEPTOR DUE TO ALL
SOURCES FOR DIFFERENT POLLUTANTS
CALCULATE CONCENTRATION FOB
DIFFERENT AVERAGING TIMES
CALCULATE VISIBILITY
((B) Continued)
15)
FIGURE I. (Continued)
-------
ASHOK K. LUIIAR AND P. KHANNA
ON
CALCULATE THE CONCENTRATION OP SUBSTANCES
DUE TO LAND DISPOSAL OP THE HASTE THROUGH
DISPERSION EQUATIONS
CALCULATE THE VALUES OF PREDICTORS OP BIO-
LOGICAL ENVIRONMENT (WHICH MEASURE THE EFFECTS
OF A PROJECT ON FLORA AND FAUNA)
CALCULATE THE INCREASE IH THE NOISE LEVEL
DUE TO THE PROJECT
CALCULATE THE VALUES OF PREDICTORS OF SOCIO-
ECONOMIC ENVIRONMENT (WHICH MEASURE THE
CHANGES IH SOCIAL AND ECONOMIC STATUS OF THE
PEOPLE LIVING IN THE AREAS NEARBY I
«B) Continued)
(6)
FIGURE 1. (Continued)
: !:
.COMPUTER-AIDED RAPID ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT
15
161
(C) COST-EFFECTIVE
•3,
EVALUATION
FUNCTION TO CALCULATE
QUALITY INDEX FOR ENVI-
RONMENTAL RISKS DUE TO
INCREASE IH WATER TEMP.
SUBROUTINE TO CALCULATE
QUALITY 1HDEX FOR HEALTH
DISKS DUE TO LAND POLLUTION
SUBROUTINE TO CALCULATE
QUALITY INDEX FOR ASTHETIC
RISKS DUE TO LAND POLLUTION
SUBROUTINE TO CALCULATE
QUALITY INDEX FOR ENVIRON-
MENTAL RISKS DUE TO LAND
POLLUTION
SUBROUTINE TO CALCULATE
QUALITY INDEX FOR
SOCIOECONOMIC ENVIRON-
MENT
CONVERT TUE PREDICTORS OF
ALL ENVIRONMENTAL COMPON-
ENTS INTO THEIR RESPECTIVE
QUALITY INDICES (REAL
SCORES)
I EXCLUDING COSTS I
SUBROUTINE TO CALCULATE
QUALITY INDEX FOR HFAI.TII
RISKS DUE TO AIR POLUITM'H
SUBROUTINE TO CALCULATE
QUALITY INDEX TOR KNVInnll-
HENTAL RISKS DUE TO AIR
POLLUTION
SUBROUTINE TO CALCULA
QUALITY INDEX FOR AS1lll.fl
RISKS DUE TO AIR PnLLIIMm; •
'LAtr 1
siui.cn I
SUBROUTINE TO CALCULATE
QUALITY INDEX FOR BIO-
LOGICAL ENVIRONMENT
(FLORA AND FAUNA)
(71*
FIGURE 1. (Continued)
-------
ASHOK K. LUHAR AND P. KHANNA
Brief descriptions of mathematical models incorporated in the program for
irediction of impacts follow:
\ir
\ short-term Gaussian point source model, which has been incorporated in the
HAM program of the US Environmental Protection Agency (Novak and Turner
1976), has been used for the prediction of air pollution levels. The model uses
P-G dispersion parameters and calculates plume rise using Briggs' equations.
Wind speed is corrected at the stack height using the power law relation given
by Deacon (Wark and Warner 1981). Concentrations are corrected for stack
downwash and chemical attenuation (Dobbins 1979). The latter correction, how-
ever, cannot be applied to all pollutants because of the complex chemistry
associated with them. The concentrations are converted for different averaging
times, as required by value function curves, using the power law relation (Stern
1976). Visibility is reckoned from the concentration of particulates. The pol-
lutants considered in the program are NO2, CO, 03, SO2, TSP, and hydrocarbons.
The model can also be used for long-term predictions by taking the average over
a wind rose. The assessment of impacts on air quality is described in detail by
Clark et al. (1984), Jakeman and Simpson (1985), and Shen (1986).
^Water
The program incorporates the case of thermal pollution (as in thermal power
projects) with recourse to simple diffusion equations (Parker and Krenkel 1970;
Zaric 1978) for predicting the increase in temperature of a water body (river,
lake, or estuary) at different locations. The program can be generalized (for
other projects) by incorporating prediction models for conservative and noncon-
servative pollutants. '
Land
The prediction refers to the horizontal and vertical concentrations of pollutants
consequent to land disposal of waste waters. The model parameters are highly
dependent on soil characteristics.
Biological Environment
Various predictors, described in the literature (Rau and Woolen 1980) have been
used to predict the impacts of a proposed project on a biological environment.
Sample plot or quadrants methods and a roadside count method are used to
COMPUTER-AIDED RAPID ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT
predict the impacts of the project on flora and fauna, respectively. The prediction
refers to the Importance Value and Census Index.
Socioeconomic Environment
Two predictors, the Index of Qualitative Variation and the Dependency Ratio.
calculated from demographic data, have been used to predict the impacts ol the
project on the socioeconomic environment.
TABLE 2. Environmental impact assessment matrix
Environmental
Component (i)
Air
Water
Land
Biological
Socioeconomic
Noise
Associated risks
and control costs (j)
Health risks
Environmental risks
Aesthetic risks
Cost of control*
Health risks
Environmental risks
Aesthetic risks
Cost of control1
Health risks
Environmental risks
Aesthetic risks
Cost of control1
Environmental risks
Aesthetic Risks
Cost of control*
Environmental risks
Cost of control*
Health risks
Aesthetic risks
Cost of control'
Environmental parameters
and predictors (It)
NO,. CO, TSP x SO,, 0,
NO,. CO, SO,, TSI>.
hyrocarbons
Visibility, odor1
NO,. SO,. TSP
Helminths,1 vims,' colifmms
BOD, temperature
Mosquito,1 fly,1 and «ul
-------
18
ASIIOK K. LU'IIAR AND P, KIIANNA
Noise
Models are available in literature to predict the noise levels from point »nd line
sources (Rau and Woolen 1980; Magrab 1975). Inputs for the models are receptor
location, sound intensity, or sound power (fora point source), number of vehicles
and their speeds (for a line source), etc.
The tabular form of the EIA matrix, used in the program, is shown in Table
2. Out of some number (preferably 1000), weight is assigned to each element
of the matrix based on its relative significance. A subindex is calculated for each
of the matrix elements using value function graphs incorporated in the program
in mathematical forms. A subindex value of 1 is considered best while a value
of 0 is considered worst. Value function graphs for aesthetic, environmental,
and health risks for the air environment are included in Figures 2 through 12.
Average time for Figures 6, 7, 9, and 11 is 24 hours; for Figures 4, 5, 8, 10,
and 12 the average times are annual, one hour, three hours, eight hours, and
I
CO
I
1.00
x 0.75
kl
O
a
m
£ 0.50
3
O
0-25
100
80
60
40
20 ~
x
10;
e t
6 5
4 >
I
100 200 400 600
PARTICULATE CONCENTRATION
FIGURl
alue Function Curve for Visibility (Aesthetic Risk)
COMmiTER-AIOED RAPID EHVIRONMENTAt IMPACT ASSESSMENT .-', ,
0-5
X
UI
o
I 0-3
n
v
j-
3 0.2
o
0-1
DISAGREEABLE
ODOUR
HIEAVV FREQUENT I
—M4
POLLUTION ^^
MODERATE
OCCASIONAL
POLLUTION
CLEAR
FIGURE 3. Value Function Curve for Odor (Aesthetic Risk)
two hours, respectively. An overall index is calculated by taking the wcipliict
sum of subindices for all the project options including the no-project oplion.
Overall index i _ v V V Y P
of a project option 777" i)k i)k
i = number of environmental components (max. i = 6) _
j = number of environmental risks (+ one cost element) for ith
component (max. j = 4)
k = number of pollutants or predictors for ith component and jth
risks (max. k = 5)
X = quality subindex of a particular element, i, j, and k
F = maximum score or weight given to a particular element, i,
j, and k ^^
-------
0.05 O.t0 0-15
NITROOENDIOXIDE CONCENTRATI Otf
FIGURE 4. Value Function Curve for NO2 (Environmental Risk)
0-20
/U
1-0
0-8
u 0-6
o
a
w
0-4
0-2
_L
J_
10 20 30 40 50
CARBON MONOXIDE CONCENTRATION «m«/H-*-
<: Value Function Curve for CO (Environmental Risk)
CD
t °-
0.8
o.s
0-4
I
0-2
0 0-4 0-8 1-2 1-6 20 2-4
SULPHUR DIOXIDE CONCENTRATION (m«/U —«
FIGURE 6. Value Function Curve for SOj (Environmental Risk)
1-0
0-B
0-6
o
z
i
or
i
100 200 300 400
PARTICULATES CONCENTRATION
FIGURE 7. Value Function Curve for Particulates (Environmental Risk)
-------
«
= il-O!
0-8
; 1 0-6i
' '
M
3
0-4
; 0-2
4-
JL.
, 1-0,
V:
0.1 0-2 0-3 CM
HYDROCARBONS CONCENTRATION Infl/ll
^ FIGURE 8. Value Function Curve for Hydrocarbons (Environmental Risk)
1-0
0-5
10 I02 10s
CARBON MONOXIDE CONCENTRATION (m«A)
FIGURE 10 Value Function Curve for CO (Health Risk)
10'
. wHe
NITROOENDIOXIDE CONCENTRATION
1000 2000 SOOO 4000 9000
T9PXSO, CONCENTRATIONS Ipfl/n
600(
Fir.llRF, 9.HIR Function Curve for NO2 (Health Risk)
FIGURE 11. Value Function Curve for TSP x S02
-------
24
ASIIOK K. LUIIAR AND P. KHANNA
""
1-0
08
x
kl
O
i as
9
$0-4
3
a
0-2
10
102 10s
OZONE CONCENTRATION t/i«/m3)
FIGURE 12. Value Function Curve for O) (Health Risk)
The option that provides highest value of I is considered as the best option
followed by other project options according to their decreasing indices.
Conclusions
The scope of E1A in' most developing countries is restricted to the questionnaire
type checklists defeating the purpose of the exercise as a decision-making tool.
This presentation is a limited step in the development of computer-aided quan-
titative EIA. The paper essentially presents a framework for rapid EIA and covers
six environmental components (air, water, land, noise, biological, and socio-
economic environments) and the costs of mitigation measures.
The work presented here forms a part of a project sponsored by the Ministry of Environment and
Forests, Government of India.
REFERENCES
Baltelle Institute. 1978. The Selection of Projects for EIA. Brussels. Commission of the
Pnrnnean Communities Environment and Consumer Protection Service.
COMPUTER-AIDED RAPID ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSIiSSMLNI
Canter, L. W. 1977. Environmental Impact Assessment. New Ym Jra\v-||j||.
Clark, A. I., Mclntre, A. E., Lester, J. N., and Perry, R. 1984. Air quality ini|
assessment. Environ. Monit. and Assess. 4:205-232.
Dobbins, R. A. 1979. Atmospheric Motion and Air Pollution. New York: Wiley-ln
science.
Heer, J. E., and Hagerty, D. J. 1977. Environmental Assessments and Staienienn N
York: Van Nostrand Reinhold.
Jakeman, A. J., and Simpson. R. W. 1985. Assessment of air quality impacts from
elevated point source. J. Environmental Management 20(l):63-72.
Magrab, E. B. 1975. Environmental Noise Control. New York: Wiley.
Munn, R. E. (ed). 1979. Environmental Impact Assessment: Principles and Proceiliu
Toronto: International Council of Scientific Unions, Scientific Committee on Problc
of the Environment.
Novak, J. H., and Turner, B. 1976. An efficient Gaussian plume multiple source
quality algorithm. J. Air Pottut. Control Assoc. 26(6):570-575.
Parker, F. L., and Krenkel, P. A. 1970. Physical and Engineering Aspects of Them
Pollution. London: Bulterworths.
Rau, J. G., and Wooten, D. C. (eds). 1980. Environmental Impact Analysis Hantlbm
New York: McGraw-Hill.
Shen, T. T. 1986. Assessment of air pollution impact. Atmospheric Enviromw
20(10):2039-2045.
Stern, A. C. 1976. Air Pollution, Vol. I. New York: Academic Press.
UNEP. 1978. Draft Guidelines for Assessing Industrial Environmental Impact and I
vironmental Criteria for the Siting of Industry. Paris: UNEP Industry and Environincni
Office.
Wark, K., and Warner, C. P. 1981. Air Pollution, Its Origin and Control. New Ym
Harper and Row.
Zaric, Z. P. (ed). 1978. Thermal Effluent Disposal from Power Generation. Washiiinim
DC: Hemisphere.
-------
(1
,,, , I !!'," ,, «i III! I
" .1 , I. li11 HI"' '«,
1.5.6-12
-------
^ . H) iu
U> OZONE CONCENTRATION t/tg/ffl9)
ON
^ FIGURE 12. Value Function Curve for Oj (Health Risk)
w
The option that provides highest value of I is considered as the best option
followed by other project options according to their decreasing indices.
Conclusions
The scope of El A in most developing countries is restricted to the questionnaire
type checklists defeating the purpose of the exercise as a decision-making tool.
This presentation is a limited step in the development of computer-aided quan-
titative El A. The paper essentially presents a framework for rapid El A and covers
six environmental components (air, water, land, noise, biological, and socio-
economic environments) and the costs of mitigation measures.
The work presented here forms a part of • project sponsored by the Ministry of Environment and
Forests, Government of India.
COMPUTER-AIDED RAPID ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMEN.
••
Canter, L. W. 1977. Environmental Impact Assessment. New York: McGraw-Hill.
Clark, A. I., Mclntre, A. B., Lester, J. N., and Perry, R. 1984. Air quality imp
assessment. Environ. Monlt. and Assess. 4:205-232.
Dobbins, R. A. 1979. Atmospheric Motion and Air Pollution. New York: Wlley-lnl
science.
Heer, J. B., and Hagerty, D. J. 1977. Environmental Assessments and Statemtnts. N>
York: Van Nostrand Reinhold.
Jakeman, A. J., and Simpson, R. W. 1985. Assessment of air quality impacts from
elevated point source. J. Environmental Management 20(l):63-72.
Magrab, B. B. 1975. Environmental Noise Control. New York: Wiley.
Munn, R. B. (ed). 1979. Environmental Impact Assessment: Principles and Procedun
Toronto: International Council of Scientific Unions, Scientific Committee on Probler
of the Environment.
Novak, ). H., and Turner, B. 1976. An efficient Gaussian plume multiple source t
quality algorithm. J. AlrPollut. Control Assoc. 26(6):570-575.
Parker, F. L., and Krenkel, P. A. 1970. Physical and Engineering Aspects of Therm,
Pollution. London: Butterworths.
Rau, J. O., and Woolen, D. C. (eds). 1980. Environmental Impact Analysis Handbool
New York: McGraw-Hill.
Shen, T. T. 1986. Assessment of air pollution impact. Atmospheric Environmei
20(IO):2039-2045.
Stem, A. C. 1976. Air Pollution, Vol. I. New York: Academic Press.
UNEP. 1978: Draft Guidelines for Assessing Industrial Environmental Impact and En
vlronmental Criteria for the Siting of Industry. Paris: UNEP Industry and Environments
Office.
Wark, K., and Warner, C. P. 1981. Air Pollution, Its Origin and Control. New York
• Harper and Row.
Zaric, Z. P. (ed). 1978. Thermal Effluent Disposal from Power Generation. Washington
DC: Hemisphere.
-------
B'ili"'1' In.,," !' "• ""'.'liiil'IO1 : I"1 11 11 ii'ii'1"11!!'
• 111 II
';» . ' ' IF"
-------
Impact Identification
Many choices have to be made in the EA process, among which are the
choice of impacts that should -be assessed (Chapters 2 and 3) and the level of
analysis that is required. An impact is described as a change in an environmental
or socioeconomic parameter, resulting from a proposed action compared to the
situation had the proposed action not been initiated (Wathem 1988). Because
there are so many possible impacts of a proposed activity, limits and constraints
must be determined early in the planning process and endpoints must be
established. For example, issues that are identified during scoping are often too
broad for analytical purposes (e.g., ecosystem health). They must be focused on
expected impacts to valued ecosystem components (e.g., Hudson River striped
bass population) and then decisions made on an assessment endpoint (e.g.,
abundance or yield). The nature of the impacts must also be determined (e.g.,
direct/indirect, short/long term, reversible/irreversible). Estimates of the
magnitude, likelihood, and temporal and spatial distribution of potential impacts
from the proposed activity must be provided to the EA team by the proponent.
Five main classes of impact-identification techniques exist: ad hoc methods (e.g.,
brainstorming, expert panels, field reconnaissance), checklists, matrices,
networks, and map overlays (Westman 1985).
NEEDS
An interdisciplinary approach is critical to the impact identification stage(s)
of the EA process. During project initiation all of the technical and scientific
experts, including the proponent, must gather to identify and clarify the potential
impacts of the proposed action on valued resources. Discussions should include
the how, where, and when of directly, indirectly, and cumulatively affected
resources. During and following scoping, the team can expect additional impacts
to be identified. Effective assessment depends on team members understanding
how the proposed action and the affected resources are interrelated and the role
that each discipline has in the integrated analysis.
TOOLS
• Early intra-and interagency consultation and public scoping provide
opportunities for identifying potential impacts and determining the
extent of subsequent analyses. In particular, federal, tribal,
1.5.7-1
*For purposes of this document, the term Environmental Assessment (EA) will refer to the
Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) process.
-------
regional, and local regulatory agencies should be contacted to
determine if the proposed action violates any ordinances, laws,
plans or policies.
:. • '•!'• '.'"•• .,,? :.".,. ,."',.',;.;;"I.;';.1,:.,;:; ;:;„„;„" • •";•':;.;.,.; ,;,",';"„;:"!::,:;:" :'•;i; • :i;, ••
There are generally 18 categories for consideration in EA many of
which have some regulatory constraints:
Geology
Topography
Soils
round Waiter Resources
/Terrestrial Ecology ......
Aquatic Ecology
Environmentally Sensitive
' I;i: ", ''and Species .................
Air Quality
Land Use
Demography
Noise
Socioeconomics
Infrastructural
Services
Transportation
Cultural Resources
Economics
Human Health and
:: ;; "/, ' ^ ;"" •' '"••" '•; •••'*•! ; 'if '•-••••• -Safety
Existing environmental analyses should always be used to the
extent possible in identifying and analyzing impacts. This
approach builds on work that has already been done and that has
passed public and agency scrutiny. It helps to ensure that
appropriate impacts are identified and allows the EA team to
concentrate on issues that are unique to the proposed action.
Existing analyses can include resource management plans, activity
plans, EIAs for similar or related actions including programmatic
EIA documents. The pertinent information can be summarized for
use and the documents referenced in order to keep the content of
the E^A document focused on significant impacts.
Ad hoc procedures involve assembling panels of specialists to
identify impacts in their areas of expertise (Canter 1977). Such
panels were used in the early days of EA but have been mostly
replaced by scoping, interagency consultation, the growth of
experienced multidisciplinary EA teams and, if appropriate, the
formal expert judgment process (Chapter 4.3). Ad hoc panels
have value in early planning for assembling information,
comparing alternative sites and developing strategies (Lohani and
Halim 10|7). The resulting information is usually qualitative and
readily understood (e."g.", identification of general areas and types
of impacts) rather than technical, quantitative, and suitable for
predictive analyses.
1.5.7-2
-------
Field reconnaissance is essentially qualitative in contrast to
baseline studies that gather data to resolve specific problems (e.g.,
sampling of plant or animal populations to determine variability).
A site reconnaissance is conducted to complement and confirm
background information from the literature and from human
sources on the environmental and socioeconomic setting for a
proposed action (McBrayer et al. 1981). It is normally one of the
first activities of the EA team and its value for understanding
problems associated with the proposed action is inestimable. Site
visits must be planned around clearly defined objectives. If
multiple sites are involved, it is essential to gather information that
is comparable from site to site. Of particular importance is the
understanding of what information is needed and to what
problem(s) it will be applied; otherwise, the needs of the
decisionmaker will not be met. The results of scoping and the
completion of a preliminary checklist or matrix can help focus the
reconnaissance activities of the EA team. The Fish and Wildlife
Service Manual (States et al., 1978) is useful for outlining and
describing the elements of reconnaissance and baseline studies.
The checklist was one of the first EA methods to be applied and
it is still in general use, although in many different forms, both
generic and project specific. The main advantage of a checklist is
that it promotes thinking about the array of impacts in a systematic
way and allows summarization of effects (Westman 1985).
Furthermore, the use of a checklist early in the planning process
can aid in determining whether the impacts of a proposed action
warrant the preparation of an EIA. The simplest of checklists is
a one-dimensional list of environmental factors to be considered.
Various agencies have prepared such checklists for particular types
of projects (Attachment 2.B, Chapter 4.1).
There are disadvantages to the use of checklists: they may be too
general or incomplete; interactions between effects are not
identified; the same effect may be listed in more than one place
under headings that overlap which results in "double counting";
and the large number of categories to be reviewed can distract
attention from the most significant impacts. The identification of
effects is qualitative and subjective thus the predictions cannot be
tested empirically with precision and the content of a checklist can
vary depending on the investigator (Westman 1985). Furthermore,
no statements of likelihood of occurrence are made.
1.5.7-3
-------
it 1"
't I"::
I., sj.11;1
lii Hi
I" ,':;.
• Matrices are very likely the most popular and widely used impact
identification methodology. One common application is in the
comparison of alternative actions." Alternative actions (measures,
projects, sites, designs) are listed as column headings, while the
rows are the criteria that should determine the choice of
alternative. In each cell of the matrix, a conclusion can be listed
indicating whether the alternative action is likely to have a positive
oj negative effect on the indicated criterion. Very often, the
conclusion is stated as a numerical value or symbol indicating the
level of intensity of the effect. There is an opportunity, moreover,
to apply relative weighting to the various criteria when evaluating
;:;;;;!;',,thq completed matrix (Chapter 4.3, Figure 4.3-1, Attachment
!' .7 "4.D). ':" __' '
The evolution of an impact identification methodology from
checklist to matrix is intuitively and easily accomplished. A
;, a/ i ''ill' , ' ,i : li/'i'lj, "'',! !,,;J'!j!;; il,,;"'1]1]"1!'" 'f ' 'in1 , h. », m, r Tr, * *
checklist can be viewed as a single-column summary of a proposed
''77"^tfpn,"with only a coarse characterization of the nature of
potential environmental impacts. An environmental impacts
assessment matrix provides a finer degree of impact identification
by associating a set of columns (effects) with each row
(environmental attribute) of the matrix (Leopold et al. 1971). As
a first step, the columns that correspond with the nature of the
proposed action are checked off. Then, for each column that is .
marked, the cells corresponding to environmental effects are
examined. The interpretation of the matrix is based on the
professional judgment of the individuals) performing the EA.
Within the Leopold matrix (Chapter 4.1), only a few of the
interactions would be likely to involve impacts of such magnitude
and importance that they deserve comprehensive treatment.
Although the items listed represent most of the basic actions and
environmental factors likely to be involved in a proposed action,
not all would apply to every"project.'" Even such a large matrix
may not contain all elements necessary to make a full analysis of
every project encountered. However, the coding and format are
designed for easy contraction or expansion to include additional
items. Preliminary trials suggest that the number of applicable
interactions for a typical project usually will be between 25 and
50. An impact matrix (Chapter 4.3) is an expanded checklist that
includes estimates of the relative magnitude (i.e., significance) of
the environmental impacts (Figure 4.3-1).
1.5.7-4
-------
Several variants of the Leopold matrix have been prepared; some
of them have been adapted for computerized analysis (Schlesinger
and Daetz, 1973). These variants may integrate the scores in
groups of cells to provide a quantitative and/or graphical summary
of the matrix scoring.
With the characterization of a particular action expanded to two
dimensions, comparison of several alternatives requires the
addition of a third dimension. This is readily accomplished both
conceptually and practically. The Leopold matrix analysis can be
performed on several alterative scenarios, yielding graphical
summaries that can be visually or mathematically compared. The
three-dimensional spreadsheet software programs now available
also lend themselves to the comparison of environmental impact
assessment matrices in three-dimensional format.
Networks, also known as systems diagrams, consist of a number
of linked impacts, known to result from initial actions (Figure
4.2-1); even mitigation and control measures can be illustrated.
If a magnitude and importance score is assigned to each impact
and the probability of occurrence of each impact is known, a final
index value can be calculated for the network (Westman 1985).
The advantage of a network approach is that it shows indirect
impacts and the effects of change can be followed through the
intermediaries. However, there are several problems associated
with networks among which are the postulation of indirect effects
that do not occur, obtaining reliable data on probabilities of
occurrence of effects, and as with all grand index approaches, the
final index value may obscure important uncertainties in the effects
data (Elliot 1981).
Overlay mapping is useful in displaying areas of environmental
sensitivity, the sum of natural succession, and the development and
associated landscape impacts due to multiple projects (McHarg
1969). Time series of maps from aerial photographs can be used
to view, cumulative impacts over space and time. A base map is
prepared showing the location of the project and the boundaries of
the area to be considered in the impact assessment. Additional
transparent maps at the same scale are prepared for the critical
environmental features of concern identified during initiation and
scoping (e.g., wetlands, cultural resources, wildlife habitat,
vegetative communities, protected areas). The maps are then
overlaid to highlight potential impacts.
1.5.7-5
-------
i. Z'l il'i illll
' rf"!" "i '"'Tli
•„ ','' ' ' '''I'' ' ;
• Ir1, :; vii" V ••
Aerial application
of herbicides
Water herbicide
contamination
Decreased growth
of algae, phyto-
plankton. etc.
Food chain
contamination
in water
Loss of
riparian
vegetation
Non-target
plant
mortality
Food chain
contamination
on land
Increased
water
runoff
Increased
water
temperature
Decreased
dissolved
oxygen
Increased
flow
Increased
erosion
Damage to
fish
spawning
Debris
pollution
Increased
water
yield
Increased
sediment
Increased
demands on
dissolved
oxygen
Figure 4.2-1. Example of a network to identify the potential
impacts of herbicide application [Source: Thoretal. (1978)]
1.5.7-6
-------
Geographical Information Systems (GISs) are essentially
computerized graphical overlay systems (Attachment 4.E).
Environmental features are mapped, and the mapping digitized and
stored in a GIS data base. The mapped features can be combined
to produce computer-generated displays of one or more
environmental features in a specified geographical area. If GIS
mapping is conducted systematically, information acquired on
specific projects can be combined, and the GIS data base becomes
more detailed over time. Overlay mapping is an excellent tool for
showing spatial dimensions of impacts, but is less successful in
dealing with other impact characteristics such as probability, time,
and reversibility.
The field of environmental modeling to identify and evaluate
environmental impacts has developed very rapidly due essentially
to two factors (Wrgensen 1991; Chapter 4.3):
The development of computer technology, which has made
possible the handling of complex mathematical systems.
A better understanding of pollution problems, including the
application of ecology in this context.
Modeling is the most advanced EA method available but it depends
on experts to know which components and processes should be
included; it can be costly; and it is only as good as the available
data and the assumptions that bound the analysis. The general
components of modeling and types of models are discussed by
J&gensen (1991). Bregman and Mackenthun (1992) provide
information on computer models for surface water quality and air
quality. Attachment 4.C describes models that are useful for
predicting the fate of chemicals in multimedia systems (i. e.,
fugacity models) as well as remediation, aquatic, soil, food chain,
atmospheric, and spill models.
Luhar and Khanna (1988; Attachment 4.B) present a framework
for computer-aided rapid EA that covers six environmental
components (air, water, land, noise, biological, and socio-
economics) and the costs of mitigation measures. The authors
recognize that data availability in developing countries often is
limited; thus, their models have minimal data requirements. Some
computer-aided impact identification and data summarization
systems are discussed by Strand et al. (1983), Riggins (1980-81),
and Lein (1993).
1.5.7-7
-------
I" II
I,;:11 ill T .1
II
11 (I
ISSUES
As described above, an impact is a change in an environmental or
socioeconomic parameter. Westman (1985) limits the term impact
to the effect of a human-induced action on an ecosystem.
Decisionmakers and the publics are normally most concerned with
major impacts (i.e., those that would occur and for which no
mitigative measures are proposed or possible to decrease the level
of impact), violations of standards or controversial issues (e.g.,
those resulting from disagreements among experts and occasionally
from public concerns). It is important to remember that only those
valued resources identified as having the potential of being
significantly impacted need be analyzed in detail (Bureau of Land
Management 1992). However, decisions made not to evaluate
resources in detail must be supported by adequate information.
Selecting appropriate geographical and temporal boundaries for
impacts requires learning about the types and rates of release,
movement, and transformation of materials and energy (Irwin and
Rodes 1992). It means understanding ecological processes, such
as bioaccumulation, that control these rates. It also means
understanding the ranges of plants and animals and the life span of
valued resources.
Early in the planning process, it is important to establish
geographic boundaries of potential impact(s) for proposed actions
to avoid unnecessary data collection and analysis. In most cases,
it is necessary to go beyond the immediate project site, especially
for determination of cumulative impacts. The geographic area of
analysis is likely to vary depending on the specific resource of
interest. There may be physical boundaries such as watersheds,
biological boundaries such as habitats, socioeconomic boundaries
such as market areas or regions or political boundaries such as
counties (Bureau of Land Management 1992; Irwin and Rodes
1992). A rule of thumb is to consider effects as far away as
necessary for those resources identified as important during
scoping. Usually the area of assessment is established as the area
beyond which the influence of the project is negligible or
decreasing. At a minimum, this area should be as large as the
"service area" of the proposed project. At this locus of points
(i.e., along the boundary line of the assessment area/volume), it
shouM fee possible to demonstrate that the impacts are clearly not
significant (Bureau of Land Management 1992).
1.5.7-8
IK
'•
'III11
-------
In addition to identifying the geographic area of potential impacts
and valued resources, the life of the project(s) must be identified
and related to the life span of the potentially affected resource.
Impacts can be single, repeated, or multiple. They can occur
rapidly over a matter of days or slowly over decades building to
cause cumulative impacts. The past is analyzed to see if trends
have been established; the future is assessed to see what effect the
proposed action(s) might have on valued resources identified
during initiation and scoping. The barriers to selecting spatial and
temporal boundaries are usually both institutional [e.g., legal
constraints (regulations) and a lack of means to set goals,
determine roles, and resolve disputes among different agencies and
levels of government] and technical (e.g., lack of integrated data
and acceptable models, limited understanding of environmental
processes, uncertainty) (Cada and Hunsaker 1990).
Traditional impact assessment usually examines the consequences
of a single source of environmental disturbance (i.e., a discrete
event or project) on valued resources and neglects or gives short
shrift to tiie problem of potential cumulative impacts.
Assessment of cumulative impact examines the consequences of
multiple sources of environmental disturbance that impinge on the
same valued environmental components. The characteristic
"multiple" nature of cumulative impacts may arise in three ways:
the same kind of source recurs sufficiently frequently
through time;
the same kind of source recurs sufficiently densely through
space; and
different kinds of sources impose similar consequences on
a valued resource.
Identifying and evaluating potential cumulative impacts is difficult
for at least four reasons (Irwin and Rodes 1992):
the intricacies of environmental systems have only begun
to be understood;
there are seldom adequate data for environmental changes
or their causes, particularly at appropriate time frames and
spatial distributions;
predictions of what will happen are inherently uncertain;
and
1.5.7-9
-------
I
' O 1
legal mandates and organizational interests frequently do
not match the boundaries of environmental problems.
Dealing with the problems requires learning to address multiple
actions or sources and additive or interactive effects at appropriate
time and space boundaries (Irwin and Rodes 1992).
EPA (1992a) provides a proposed methodology to assist wetland
regulators in assessing the cumulative effect of individual wetland
impacts within a landscape. It is designed for situations in which
time, resources, and information are limited. The approach does
not provide a precise quantitative assessment of the cumulative
effects within a particular area. Rather, it provides a mechanism
to compare cumulative impacts between areas.
Any environmental assessment must have defined endpoints (Suter
1989,1990; U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 1992b; Cairns
and Niederlehner 1993). Information compiled during initiation
and scoping is used to help select endpoints that are relevant to
decisions made about protecting the environment. Environmental
assessment practitioners often distinguish between assessment
endpoints and measurement endpoints. Often the assessment
endpoint cannot be measured directly, so a measurement
endpoint(s) is selected that can be related, either quantitatively or
qualitatively, to the assessment endpoint (U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency 1992b). An assessment endpoint is an explicit
expression of an environmental value that is to be protected (e.g.,
a sport fish population). A measurement endpoint is a quantitative
summary of a monitoring study, a toxicity test or other activity
that reveals the effects of a proposed action on the valued
assessment endpoint. For example, a decline in a sport fish
population (the assessment endpoint) may be evaluated by using
laboratory studies on the mortality of surrogate species, such as the
fathead minnow (the measurement endpoint).
i
Sound professional judgment is necessary for proper assessment
and measurement endpoint selection, and it is important that both
the selection rationale and the linkages between measurement
endpoints, assessment endpoints, and policy goals be clearly stated.
In order for the results of an assessment to be meaningful for the
decisionmaker, endpoints should have the following characteristics:
1.5.7-10
111!:..' I.,,,!1" ',. ,,:«„:! ,,,'U, ••• ,
-------
societal relevance (i.e., understood and valued by the
public and by the decisionmaker),
unambiguous (e.g., effects on the abundance of the Hudson
River striped bass population in contrast to "ecosystem
health"),
biological relevance (e.g., effects on populations or
ecosystems rather than individuals),
assessable to prediction or measurement (i.e., if the
response of an endpoint cannot be measured or estimated
from measurements of similar or related responses, it can
not be assessed), and
susceptibility (i.e., the endpoint must have the potential for
exposure and be responsive to the hazard).
Identification of impacts is only the first step of the assessment
phase. The predicted impacts must also be interpreted for the
decisionmaker and the public in terms of their influence on the
human environment. For each of the alternatives and the proposed
action, the EIA should address whether the predicted impacts are:
beneficial or adverse,
direct or indirect (triggered at a future time, or different
place),
short-term or long-term (and thus potentially cumulative),
and
irreversible (and thus detrimental to sustainability).
Ecological risk assessment procedures can provide insight to the
likelihood that an adverse impact will occur and the magnitude of
the consequences (EPA 1992b).
Regulatory agencies should be consulted before embarking on
modeling exercises because they frequently have specific models
that are required or recommended for use in environmental impact
analysis. The results of other models may not be acceptable unless
the models have undergone rigorous validation processes.
Although developing countries may not have adequate data and
human and financial resources for elaborate EA, the use of rapid
identification procedures (e.g., checklists and matrices) requires
little collection of technical/ecological data, but rather a general
familiarity with the region and with the nature of the proposed
action (Biswas and Geping 1987). Lohani and Halim (1987)
describe the application of a checklist and different types of
1.5.7-11
-------
ill «!,,if
matrices to a proposed pulp mill project in Thailand (Part C). They conclude that
checklists and matrices result in rapid identification of likely impacts and that
their use depends on the expert judgment and coordination and participation of all
concerned, the proponent, the EA team, the public, and the government agencies
responsible for various resources (e.g., fisheries, forests, agriculture).
'LINKAGES'"
Identification of potential impacts of a proposed action is a process that
begins informally with the proponent during initiation and gains momentum
during early intra-and interagency consultations and the public scoping process.
Impact identification culminates during the assessment phase when the EA team
describes the impacts of the proposed action and alternatives, quantifies the extent
of the predicteti "impacts''!' identifies measures to mitigate the unavoidable
environmental impacts, and prepares an EA report for the decisionmaker and the
public.
n , , „.,.. ..... .:«,.
Biswas, A. K., and Q. Geping. 1987. Environmental Impact Assessment for
Developing Countries. Tycooly International. 232 pp.
Bregman, J. I., and K. Ml Mackenthun. 1992. Environmental Impact
Statements. Lewis Publishers, Boca Raton. 279 pp.
Bureau of Land Management. 1992. Draft Guidelines for Assessing and
Documenting Cumulative Impacts.
• ' ' '.' , ° „ ,, ,„„,,, ,..£, , „,
Cada2 C. F., and C. T. Hunsaker. 1990. Cumulative impacts of hydropower
development: Reaching a watershed in impact assessment. The
Environmental Professional 12:2-8.
Cairns, J. Jr., and B. R. Niederlehner. 1993. Ecological function and
resilience: neglected criteria for environmental impact assessment and
ecological risk analysis. The Environmental Professional 15:116-124.
t,1, i "i '*
Elliot, M. L. 1981. Pulling the pieces together: amalgamation in environmental
impact assessment. Environmental Impact Assessment Review 2:11-38.
Irwin, F., and B. Rodes. 1992. Making Decisions on Cumulative
E^ A Conceptual Framework. World Wildlife
fund,' Washington, D.C. 54 pp.
1.5.7-12
-------
Jdrgensen, S. E. 1991. Environmental management modelling. In:
Introduction to Environmental Management (eds. P. E. Hansen and S. E.
Jrirgensen). Elsevier, New York. 403 pp.
Lein, J. K. 1993. Formalizing expert judgment in the environmental impact
assessment process. The Environmental Professional 15:95-102.
Leopold, L. B., E. Clarke, B. B. Hanshaw, and J. B. Balsley. 1971. A
Procedure for Evaluating Environmental Impact. U.S. Geological Survey
Circular 645, U.S. Geological Survey, Washington, D.C.
Lohani, B. N., and N. Halim. 1987. Recommended methodologies for rapid
environmental impact assessment in developing countries: Experiences
derived from case studies in Thailand. In: Environmental Impact
Assessment for Developing Countries (eds., A. K. Biswas and Q.
Geping). Tycooly International, London.
Luhar, A. K., and P. Khanna. 1988. Computer-aided rapid environmental
impact assessment. Environmental Impact Assessment Review 8:9-25.
McBrayer, J. F., S. B. Gough, R. C. Robertson, and H. E. Zittel. 1981.
Identifying alternatives at a reconnaissance level. EIA Review 2:190-195.
McHarg, I. 1969. Design with Nature. Natural History, New York.
Riggins, R. E. 1980-81. Comprehensive computer-aided environmental impact
analysis. Journal of Environmental Systems 10:81-91.
Schlesinger, B., and D. Daetz. 1973. A conceptual framework for applying
environmental assessment matrix techniques. Journal of Environmental
Science 16: 11-16.
States, J. B., P. T. Haug, T. G. Shoemaker, L. W. Reed, and E. B. Reed.
1978. A Systems Approach to Ecological Baseline Studies. U.S.
Department of Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service, FWS/OBS-78/21.
Strand, R. H., M. P. Farrell, J. C. Goyert, and K. L. Daniels. 1983.
Environmental assessments through research data management. Journal
of Environmental Management 16:269-280.
Suter, G. W. II. 1990. Endpoints for regional ecological risk assessments.
Environmental Management 14:9-23.
1.5.7-13
-------
Kill!' .
Suter, |3/tv. II. 1989. Ecological endpoints. In: Ecological Assessment of
Hazardous Waste Sites: A Field and Laboratory Reference Document
(eds. W. Warren-Hicks, B. R. Parkhurst, and S. S. Baker, Jr). EPA
600/3-89/013. Corvallis Environmental Research Laboratory, Oregon.
I _
Thor, E. C., G. H. Eisner, M. R. Travis, and K. M. O'Loughlin. 1978. Forest
environmental impact analysis - a new approach. Journal of Forestry
76:723-725.
: ;. ";• .:..:' '. •;:•:. :;. ..":• - :,: ; H- • ••• - -
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 1992a. A Synoptic Approach to
Cumulative Impact Assessment, A Proposed Methodology. EPA/600/R-
92/167. "CJffice'bf Research and Development, Washington, DC 20460.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 1992b. Framework for
Ecological Risk Assessment. EPA/630/R-92/001.
Wathern, P. 1988. An introductory guide to EIA. In: Environmental Impact
Assessment: Theory and Practice (ed. P. Wathern). Unwin Hyman,
'"'' "i • • '»! n in "•" . fi'liBI • -1'!, • ii' in .a, • ' ' iii " "i • f
-------
Impact Analysis and Prediction
Methods for impact analysis and prediction range from relatively simple
matrices to sophisticated computer models (Westman 1985, ERL 1984). Choice
of the various methods is determined by the EA team based on the nature of the
proposed action and the needs of the decisionmaker. Often, many of the impacts
of a proposed action are trivial and a decision depends upon a small subset of
issues of importance. The nature of the analysis, must reflect these needs.
In developing a general approach to analyzing environmental impacts,
there are several fundamental questions that must be asked early in the planning
process. They include:
• What effects must be predicted (i.e., what are the assessment
endpoints?)
• What are the most relevant methods for analysis and prediction of
environmental impacts?
• What ad hoc standards or generally-accepted criteria can be used
to distinguish significant levels of environmental impacts from all
possible levels of impacts?
• Are mathematical or statistical methods available for objectively
estimating levels of impacts, or will subjective scoring be used at
one or more stages of the assessment?
• Are there documented studies of the effects of prior similar
actions?
• How can the analysis provide the information needed by the
decisionmaker?
• Is the necessary time, money, and expertise available?
The term analysis refers to formal methods for predicting/estimating
effects of proposed activities. Broadly, these methods can be grouped as
professional judgment (e.g., Delphi technique, impact matrices, expert systems;
however, it should be noted that professional judgment is applied throughout the
EA process); comparison to similar projects (analog studies); field and laboratory
experiments (microcosms and mesocosms); and predictive modeling. Risk
assessment is part of EA (Andrews 1988) and typically involves several or more
quantitative techniques to estimate the likelihood (or probability) and severity of
harm to human health and the environment resulting from exposure to a risk
1.5.8-1
*For purposes of this document, the term Environmental Assessment (EA) will refer to the
Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) process.
-------
,'jgil
inci
.in lij'i
'•« ii-i-l!: " t-•'„„!! I1''
•' .'"' ft1 10:11 ,i
(e.g., a chemical substance, biological organism, radioactive material, or
other potentially hazardous substance or activity). Risk assessment usually
depends on the following distinct but related parts: source/release data, exposure
assessment, dose-response data, and risk characterization (i.e., integration of the
previous steps into a risk statement that includes one or more quantitative
estimates of risk). The use of risk assessment in EA depends on the nature of the
proposed activity, the issues, arid the needs of the decisionmaker.
Jill1 i'll iii;"1)-' Vi«jjf c,.v :j>s; i. WT .,•.•: J'.,VT.', >»' *'•!''.• 'i l-l" r,,,! ' I "• "
|n a study of 140 EIAs (ERL 1984) to determine the use of formal,
predefined and repeatablemethods of prediction, it was found that mathematical,
physical or experimental methods were used in 25 percent of the studies; in a
further 15 percent, simple methods such as inventories of receptors affected (e.g.,
numbers of people or properties, areas of habitat) were used to describe effects.
In the remaining documents, other approaches not involving formal methods were
used (e.g., experf judgment,analogous studies, comparisons with standards).
Informal and formal approaches to prediction were often used together in order
to qualify and interpret results.
" '" •"'"" > .»,;' BiT,.,(iv; 'V ', , -51 ';'v. ;,.y ' • , ri1:: . :;.. ••
In another study (described in Wathern 1988), staff from four U.S. federal
agencies were given a list of methods and asked to indicate their use within the
agency. The results show that the traditional techniques (e.g. overlay mapping,
habitat evaluation, and the Leopold matrix) are used more often than modeling.
However, three of the agencies polled are responsible for land management
activities (i.e., Bureau of Land Management, Forest Service, and Soil
Conservation Service). Thus, an emphasis on habitat evaluation procedures is to
be expected. However, the agencies also indicated that they often rely on their
own approaches rather than existing techniques.
'":. '• -' : :: ' i NEEDS
T i/ '.I • : ':•• ' .;'•. . ;;i ' . | ' • ..'I:;;;
Impact analysis commonly requires f) data about the proposed action
(e.g., the construction phase and subsequent operational characteristics) and the
environmental setting (i.e., baseline conditions) and 2) methods for estimating
effects of:
- contaminant releases,
physical destruction or modification of habitat,
- harvesting (either deliberate or incidental as in entrainment
of larval fish), and
- socioecqnomic disruption.
Canter (1977) describes traditional EA methods while Jorgenseri (1988) and Suter
(1993) provide more recent developments in the area of statistical and
matnematical models. With the advent of computers, sophisticated multi-
: 1.5.8-2
-------
compartment models (Attachment 4.C) have been developed but their use in
everyday EA is limited. Most EA depends on simple single-media air and water
dispersion models for estimates of pollutant concentration coupled to standards or
toxicity data to estimate effects on species of interest (Bregman and Mackenthun
1992). It is important, if at all possible, to use accepted methods and models and
to document their use carefully.
Jdrgensen (1991) describes three important steps in establishing the
credibility of computer models: calibration, verification, and validation. These
steps are generally useful for other quantification methods as well.
Calibration is an attempt to reconcile computed and
observed data by systematically varying selected
parameters. Calibration can be carried out by trial-and-
error methods or by use of software to find the parameter
values that give the best fit between observed and computed
data.
Verification is a test of the internal logic of a model. It
answers the question, does the model react as expected? It
is a subjective assessment of the behavior of a model.
Validation, in contrast to verification, is an objective test
of how well the model output fits the data. In this step, the
modeler tests the model against a data set which is
independent of all data previously used.
TOOLS
• Professional Judgment. Environmental assessments are based on
scientific data that are frequently difficult and complex, conflicting
or ambiguous, or incomplete. Analyses of such data depend on
professional judgment based on scientific expertise. Professional
judgment is necessary to:
design and conceptualize an environmental assessment;
evaluate and select methods and models;
determine the relevance of available data to the assessment;
develop assumptions based on logic and scientific principles
to fill data gaps; and
interpret the ecological significance of predicted or
observed effects.
Because professional judgment is so important, specialized
knowledge and experience in the various phases of environmental
assessment are required. Thus, an interactive multidisciplinary
1.5.8-3
-------
I SI
. I'J I !».:
'II" HUE III" "J'l'lri h, ' ? ill
'! Ililiill i,i '", i,i ,T
-Ill1 illlnl, I ' ' ,ii| I! ,,,
'i i.'iUL ' •• •in
•".•','• ' :":: ":,''„/, ": ;',:, :,:'> •'•'.•}:••'•••'• - -•, • . * :,.,, , n , ,
team that includes expenenced biologists, ecologists and other
appropriate experts (e.g., socioeconomists) is a prerequisite for a
successful assessment. Other agencies that have special expertise
with respect to environmental issues can also be asked to provide
data for impact analysis and to participate in document preparation
and review. Independent experts can be asked to conduct
'brainstorming sessions" to generate impact scenarios and to
participate in panels to estimate the likelihood of impacts and to
address uncertainty surrounding predictions of magnitude (Lein
1993).
- _iii; • I
If the EA team determines that objective analysis and
quantification are impossible, expert opinion can be used to derive
numerical estimates. One approach known as the Delphi technique
(i.e., conceptual polling) solicits estimates from independent
experts that are averaged with those of other experts and the
median"and range of the estimates are resubmitted to the group for
a second round of comment. This process of iterative refinement
1 H- •' "' " "!„ ":,.••! , •> , ,..., .,- ,;.£ . , ^, . . .
continues until a group consensus is reached on the issue being
investigated. However^ it must be made clear to the public and the
decisionmaker that such predictions or estimates are based on
expert opinion that reflects the current range of opinion of the
scientific community and are not a guarantee of correctness.
Using formal professional judgment is expensive and time
.consuming and, therefore, should be considered only for major,
potentially costly issues after available quantitative methods have
failed to provide resolution.
i. ri ,. i; ii11!!,, , !„, ,• . II , ,,
,,. ,,,,,: ,;,,„ ,, ", ,,; , I ', ; i ^ >f'1 • f .."'H;"; ..^ i '•
One example of an EA methodology developed using the Delphi
technique is the National Sanitation Foundation Water Quality
Index (NSF-WQI) developed in the United States. The goal here
was to derive a system for indexing key water quality variables
and integrating the small group of variables into an indexing
system. In this way, water quality data could be used in a
standardized system of rating that had utility for comparisons in
"space'arid" time. "
Expert Systems. Recently, expert systems have been developed
as a trol Jhat' incorjwrates expert judgment, experience, and the
EA process (Lein 1989, 1993). A computer program is encoded
with and applies knowledge of a specific area of expertise toward
the solution of problems within a subject area. It takes the general
form of IF (condition) — THEN (conclusion) statements. Expert
systems can be useful in screening a project for identification of
1.5.8-4
-------
factors that might contribute to a significant primary impact
(analogous to an intelligent questionnaire) and as attribute
interpreters (i.e., relating project characteristics to environmental
knowledge). Their use is limited for impact analysis and
quantification.
Analog Studies. One of the best approaches to impact analysis is
reviewing the effects on the environment of similar activities and
existing disturbances or pollution sources. EA documents should
be reviewed for assessment methods and predicted impacts.
Observational field studies of existing sites can then serve as
models for similar sites exposed to similar contaminants or
disturbances. Such comparisons have been termed "analog
studies" by the National Research Council (1986). For example,
in the assessment of whether a proposed reservoir would become
eutrophic, the most credible evidence was the fact that a similar,
nearby reservoir was eutrophic (Goodman 1976).
Observational field studies provide a realism that laboratory studies
or modeling lack. However, there is always uncertainty associated
with the observed effects of contaminants or disturbances due to
variation in the natural environment of the presumed "similar"
sites. Confidence in causal relationships can be improved by
carefully selecting txjmparable reference sites or by evaluating
changes along a gradient where differences in other environmental
factors are minimized. It is important to consider potential site
specific factors during the analysis. Westman (1985) provides
references to methods used for predicting pollutant dispersion in
water and air (e.g., dye tests, toxicity texts).
If one type of environmental disturbance is considered to be
analogous to others, then relatively well-developed models and
assessment approaches for one disturbance can be used to assess
others (Suter 1993). For example, the effects of fishing on fish
populations have been used as a model for effects of mortality
from power plant cooling systems (McFadden 1977) and toxic
chemicals (Goodyear 1972, Barnthouse et al. 1987, 1990). To the
extent that actions resemble fishing, in that they cause mortality at
different rates on different life stages, the mathematical models and
computational techniques developed by fisheries scientists can also
be employed in environmental assessments.
Impact Matrices. An impact matrix (i.e., scaled matrix) is an
expanded checklist that includes estimates of the relative magnitude
1.5.8-5
-------
• I i .i,ri;ii'ii"!":
ii !:
(i.e., significance) of the environmental impacts (Leopold et al.
1971, Figure 4.3-1, Attachment 4.D ). Values are assigned to the
identified impacts and these values can be summed to aid
interpretation of the impacts of various alternatives, to evaluate the
temporal phases of a project, to identify beneficial and detrimental
impacts (through the use of plus and minus signs) or to describe
impacts associated with spatial boundaries (site vs. region) (Canter
1977). '
« .n —- o
* Jill •• ':•! i
I H i ;,
iliiir' ill
i],! Iv'iSW
lima1' „• is
'' " ..: , , ,' , !!",' ' ,!;,„
": '!„' .'„:::. : 1' -' - ,.:, ' :' !' ' ,;,:' :
"".":: i ,i , •" , , ,1, .j.j,,
1 '""" " »'' !:'"'"' • " ' ' " ' •» , „ 1 '" i" » .1 il ' Hi,. ,T
; "',:, ;, • ' ,; ;,. ,• •;, •;, : • - -.,-.• --,
, IT , II|M , , '
'•"" •'• "" ..•;
A. 2. d. Water quality
A. 3. a. Atmospheric quality
A. 4. b. Erosion
A. 4. c. Deposition, Sedimentation
rE. i.""b. ' " Shrubs
"f.'ir'c. '"" ' ' ''' "lli: '""""'""Grasses"
B. 1 . f. Aquatic plants
B.2.C. Fish
C. 2. e. Camping and hiking
C. 3. a. Scenic views and vistas
C. 3. b. Wilderness qualities
C. 3. h. Rare and unique species
C. 4. b. Health and safety
in
?
T3
3
43
•tj"
to
V
,*•*,
—
1
-o
£
34
V
f
.0
•o
m
m
•6
X
3f
%
X
%
H
«
c
c
m
in
c
H-
%
0)
b-
•o
•o
CO
O)
f
?£
5^
54
y^
%
54
O)
in
8
a
«
c
2
H
^
5i
^
^
't
•£
o
t-
,.r(i,i.
M
^s
^m
H
«n
O)
15
*^
O
4-»
b
a)
o
ra
a.
Ul
^
5^
5£
%
%
^
H
in
.*:
ra
T3
"o
-------
One — Effects occur but are of only slight concern;
slightly important effects.
Two — Effects of moderate concern; moderately
important effects.
Three — Effects are of particular concern; most
important effects.
Blank — The perturbation has no effect on the
process or component.
In addition to having the same problems as checklists (Chapter
4.2), scaled matrices convey objectivity when in fact the values are
subjective and generated by a very restricted group(s) (e.g., the
EA team, other independent experts, or decisionmakers). The use
of summation values, although they provide the decisionmaker
with an easy way to compare a complex variety of impacts from
a number of alternatives, obscures the relative contributions of
different elements and actions. Moreover, the database is
simplified enormously to generate an index. The implications of
index values should be corroborated by other assessment
techniques. Also, any such assessment index should be validated
by field testing. Nonetheless, the use of indices derived from the
consensus of experts can facilitate comparison of data from
different geographical areas or from different points in time
(Attachment 4.D).
• Field and laboratory tests and experiments. The kind of data
needed for analysis of environmental effects depends on the source
of the impact (e. g., contaminant, disturbance) and the environ-
mental endpoint of interest. Effects can range from mortality and
reproductive impairment in individuals and populations to
disruptions in community and ecosystem function such as primary
productivity. In relation to EA, field and laboratory tests are
usually conducted only when available data are lacking or
inadequate. It is particularly important that such tests are relevant
to the endpoints selected during the identification of issues, that the
quality of the data is assured, and that the need for extrapolation
is minimized.
Controlled laboratory (e.g. microcosms) and field tests (e.g.,
mesocosms) are often called physical models. They can provide
strong causal evidence linking a contaminant or disturbance with
a response and can also help discriminate between multiple sources
of impact (Suter 1993, Westman 1985, Hilborn and Walters 1981).
1.5.8-7
-------
I ill'1
iiiVi
'Yd
iii
! Trf. .
The most common type of physical model is the laboratory test
(e.g., a bean seedling in a flask of hydroponic solution as a model
of the crop in me field). The objective of these microcosm studies
is to isolate environmental components and processes and to
subject the components to various levels of perturbation. One of
the principal advantages of this approach is that it provides some
control of boundary conditions so that observed variations can be
attributed to the response under investigation. A disadvantage is
results^ ofexperiments under controlled conditions must be
witnV caution "to the natural system. The EPA has
develpjjed standard microcosm protocols for toxicity testing for
soil microBIal communities (EPA 1987, Suter and Sharpies 1984,
Van Voris et al. 1985) and excised aquatic communities (EPA
1987, Giddings 1986, Perez et al. 1984). However, microcosm
tests are seldom used in EA.
Field tests (i.e., mesocosms) are tests of the effects of a
contaminant or disturbance in an unconfined environment
conducted at approximately the same scale as the predicted effect.
They are the most difficult and expensive type of test, but if
properly conducted, they provide realistic evidence of impacts.
However, the responses in field tests are complex and so
influenced by uriconlrolled variables (e.g., weather, movement of
organisms) that the results may be difficult to understand and
generalize. Also, they are often unreplicated and have few
treatment levels because of expense and the difficulty of finding
sufficiently similar sites. The only field tests that have been
required by regulation are the natural pond tests formerly required
by the EPA Office of Pesticide Programs and the terrestrial field
tests for effects on wildlife still required by the EPA for certain
psticides (File et al. 1988).
Predictive Models. Models are used in EA to predict the
environmental consequences of an action (Attachment 4.C). They
are mathematical, statistical, or conceptual expressions of the
essential elements of a problem and, as such, every model contains
simplifications. As a result, predictions derived from models can
neither be completely accurate nor can they ever correspond
exactly to reality. It is a task for specialists to develop models;
however, their use by decisionmakers must be restrained by an
understanding of the advantages and disadvantages of modeling.
The phases associated with development of a model include:
— defining a volume in space;
1.5.8-8
-------
— defining the various reaction rates of processes of interest
(e.g., biodegradation, hydrolysis, photolysis);
— defining the various discharges to the system;
— defining the transport rates between the various media; and
— solving the equation to obtain an expression for the
substance of interest.
The use of the resulting estimates in EA involves an understanding
of the tolerances of species to pollutants, the transfer and
transformation of pollutants in ecological systems, and the effect
of toxification of one part of the ecosystem on remaining portions
(Westman 1985). In addition to the models that are described in
Attachment 4.C, the reader is referred to discussions in Westman
(1985), Cohrssen and Covello (1989), and Bregman and
Mackenthun (1992) for information on mathematical models for
predicting pollutant dispersion in air, water, and soil.
Mass balance is a fundamental concept in modeling in which a
volume in space of the environment is identified and a mass or
material balance equation is written for the volume (Figure 4.3-2;
Mackey and Paterson 1993). The "Volume" may be water in a
river, a region of the atmosphere, soil to a specific depth or even
an organism. It has defined physical boundaries and, hopefully,
fair homogeneity. A mass balance equation states that change in
the components of a volume will equal the sum of the inputs less
INFLOW t
DISCHARGES D
FORMATION F
TRANSFER FROM OTHER
COMPARTMENTS J
PHASE OR COMPARTMENT
ENVELOPE IN SPACE
OUTFLOW X
*• REACTION R
TRANSFER TO OTHER
COMPARTMENTS T
INVENTORY CHANGE « INPUTS - OUTPUTS
Vdc/dt "1+D + F + J-X-R-T kg/year
At steady state dc/clt * O
ltD + F + J = X + R+T kg/year
Figure 4.3-2. Fundamental mass balance equation.
(Source: Mackay and Paterson 1993) ._
1.5.8-9
-------
II."' I..' '"-...' l"'" - !™^ WWII iillHIIIII IlllllilPIlilliiII JIHIPI^^^K
III' 5JTJ I'" <1 II Ill*'' Hi.. I"
':l:''111111:,1;1;;11 1!:";"";;;":;"1;11 !T"'"S:1"'' •• v "v~
•;"•• . ",- ••'.":, ;. ;.. ii', V... . L, ;, /,
the sum of the outputs. Input terms may include flow in air and
water, direct discharges, or formation of chemicals. Outputs may
include flow (e.g., water from a lake) or degrading reactions or
diffusion to another medium. The modeler's task is to develop
quantities (in compatible units) for each of the terms in a mass
balance equation.
Tie following discussion of predictive models is largely a
paraphrase of Suter and Barnthouse (1993).
- Mechanistic (i.e.. mathematical) models are what most
people associate with the term "model". In this approach
to EA, the principal cause-effect relationships of a
proposed action are described in terms of mathematical
functions.and combined to yield a mathematical model
capable "of predicting future environmental conditions.
Mathematical "models" come in all degrees of complexity,
from simple variations on mass balance equations to highly
complex multivariate systems. The mathematical functions
may be purely deterministic, or may have strong stochastic
elements contributing to the model output. Some models
include statistical routines for estimating error associated
with model outputs. Most commonly used mathematical
models for impact assessment have been adapted for
computers. :"i! ' ":': '" '"• 'IiV" •'•'•• •*• " > ^ >••'••<. * ..„„ , .,
:''::''"','.; ,,!.:".^; ;:jlv:£h:\ ;•:•':'•'!-'•• ••• •-•-..;
It has often been argued that mechanistic models are
unsuited to EA because natural systems are so complex.
Approximations and simplifying assumptions always have
to be made and these necessarily introduce errors and
uncertainty. Nevertheless, mechanistic models are useful
components of many assessment studies. Examples include
predicting ecological effects of climate change, responses
,,,,,1,of landscapes to regional air pollution (Hunsaker and
Graham 1991), long-term management of fisheries (Walters
1986) and remediation of PCB contamination (Limburg
' -1986). Where there is (as there almost always is)
substantial uncertainty about the "true" nature of the
mechanisms and the values of critical parameters, astute
use of more than one model can provide valuable guidance
in making informed management decisions (Walters 1986).
Another important use of mechanistic models is to integrate
complex sets of observations made in different times and
'1:5.8-10
Mtuuni liB.'! a .ai ; i ,;;i
lii!;!!''!,:.! .i!,!!!!!!1^ in
iiim i in
-------
places. Ecosystem simulation models are often used for
this purpose [e.g., the Narragansett Bay model of Kremer
and Nixon (1978) and the forest stand composition and
succession models of Shugart and West (1980) and West et
al. (1980)].
Yet another use of mechanistic models is to predict
variables or events that are difficult or impossible to
measure from more readily measurable variables [see
Christensen et al. (1976) on the effects of the operation of
power plants on the abundance of fish populations].
Readers interested in learning mathematical modeling
techniques should consult one of the several available
textbooks on this subject, including Hall and Day (1977),
Jrirgensen (1988), Rau and Wooten (1980), and Swartzman
and Kaluzny (1987). For water quality modeling,
Thomann (1972) is an excellent text. The journal
Ecological Modeling publishes a variety of papers on both
theory and applications of environmental models.
Statistical models derive generalizations by using statistical
techniques [e.g., regression, principal components analysis;
see Snedecor and Cochram (1980) or any introductory
textbook for description of these basic statistical methods]
to summarize experimental or observational data. There
are three distinct purposes for using statistical models in
EA: hypothesis testing, description, and extrapolation.
Hypothesis testing was originally developed to determine
whether data from controlled studies provided sufficient
support for hypothesized relationships between controlled
independent variables and the observed responses of
dependent variables. It is most often used in EA for
comparison of contaminated and reference sites in
monitoring studies. However, it can lead to conclusions of
statistical significance that have no relationship to
ecological significance.
The second use of statistical models is description. For
example, a multivariate regression model might be used to
describe the results of a pollution monitoring study by
regressing concentration against distance downstream and
flow rate. Similarly, a multivariate classification method
such as principal component analysis might be used to
distinguish the sets of natural and pollution-adapted biotic
1.5.8-11
-------
ill; llsl ; : "; ir?,, I
fi'Sei' i/jj-,; i I'll I
liil 'KJlSiiiilS'i'i1 ' 'i1 ' "'''I'll |!
>,•».
....... i; ,!•
Klf1
...... ISi
Mum .
!"' ..... II
communities within an ecosystem. This description of
patterns and relationships in observational data is the major
activity of statistical ecologists. The results can be used to
frame hypotheses which are then tested in experimental
studies, to guide further sampling, or simply to increase
Understanding of the system. Readers interested in
multivariate analysis should consult Gauch (1982).
The third use of statistical models"is^'extrapolation, the use
of a model to statistically estimate something other than the
data from which it was derived. The most familiar type of
extrapolation is extrapolation of a model to conditions
outside the range of the data from which the model was
derived. This range extrapolation is considered bad
practice but is sometimes necessary in EA. Another more
useful type of extrapolation is extrapolation from a type of
data that is available to a type that is desired but
unavailable. For example, extrapolation techniques were
used to estimate the effects that ingestion of food
contaminated with chemical nerve agents would have on
wild birds based on pesticide data for rats. The
organophosphorous nerve agents and pesticides are similar
in chemical structure and biological activity. Available
"! il'ilji'liir .'JIIHIIH! ,;! I'iliEiJ"",!!!! :; , • ° J
data were sufficient to develop models for mallards and
'•Tring-necked pheasant (Sigal and Suter 1989).
In assessments of impacts of acidification on surface
waters, statistical models have been used extensively to
extrapolate from observations on subsamples of lakes and
streams to impacts on regional surface water resources
(Baker et al. 1990). Exercises^ of this kind are sometimes
referred to as "empirical modeling"; they are an important
part of basic field ecology.
Strictly speaking, a statistical model makes no presumption
to explain observation in terms of causal relationships
between the independent and dependent variables. The
model simply summarizes the relationship between the
" "/variables. "
A conceptual model usually contains three elements: the
variables of the ecosystem of interest; the external variables
that affect the state of the ecosystem of interest; and the
interrelationships between them (i.e., the processes
1.5.8-12
- ................. i. .............. ill ....... . ................... • ............. . .......
^ ....... ii ........ , ...... .. ...... ....... ; ...... j ...................... ................... is ....... ,-: ................. i ..... ...
iA
-------
involved in the response of the environment to the action).
A conceptual model is often the preliminary step in the
formulation of a mathematical model. Figure 4.3-3 shows
a conceptual diagram of the nitrogen cycle in a lake. The
ecosystem variables are nitrate, ammonium (which in the
un-ionized form ammonia is toxic to fish), nitrogen in
phytoplankton, nitrogen in zooplankton, nitrogen in fish,
nitrogen in sediment and nitrogen in detritus. The external
variables are: the water inflow and outflow, the
concentration of nitrogen components in the in- and
outflow, the solar radiation (indicated by the arrow
PHOTO) and the temperature; the latter is not shown on
the diagram, but it influences all process rates. The arrows
in the diagram illustrate the processes; these can be
expressed by use of mathematical equations in building a
mechanistic model. This conceptual model might be
applied to an assessment of the aquatic impacts of a facility
that would release ammonia. Such conceptual models can
serve as an aid to qualitative assessments and simple
quantitative assessments as well as mathematical models.
OENIT
Inflow
•Outflow L15
ig PHOTO NI-1X
al
Figure ^.3-3 . The conceptual diagram of a nitrogen cycle in in
aquatic ecosystea is shown. The processes are: 1) uptake of
nitrate and an»oniu» by algae, 2) photosynthesis, 3) nitrogen
fixation, 4) grazing with loss of undigested natter, 5), 6} and 7)
are predation and loss of undigested Batter, 8) mortality, 9)
mineralization, 10) settling of algae, 11) settling of detritus, 12)
excretion of aownium from zooplankton, 13) release of nitrogen from
the sediMent, 14) nitrification, 15), 16) and 18) input/output, and
17) denitrification.
[Source: Jfirgensen, S. E. 1991. Environmental management modelling. In:
Introduction to Environmental Management (eds. P. E. Hansen and S. E. Jjirgensen)
Elsevier, New York. 403 pp.]
1.5.8-13
-------
«IBS
• "111*
8 Specialized Analysis and Prediction Methods. As discussed
atjove. there is rib universal method for analysis and prediction of
i»!' • | 'HI "• ^^ **
enyironrnental impacts".1 Experimental testing is the scientific ideal
out not generally'feasibleexceptonsmall scales. Thus, alternative
methods have been developed to assess specific types of problems.
This section describes some, but by no means all, of the recent
"! Ill , .(,'!.. 1 J
•;<: ^methods used in EA. " ••_•
- Habitat Evaluation Methods. Because habitat includes all
the components, both biotic and abiotic, necessary for the
survival of a species (e.g. food, cover, water, breeding
areas), knowing the general habitat requirements of a
species allows determination of the potential value of an
area for wildlife. (See EPA 1993 for discussion of habitat
issues relevant to environmental assessment.) This
information is useful in predicting effects of physical
disturbance or destruction on fish and wildlife populations.
For example when habitat is destroyed, the loss of a
wildlife species will approximately equal the sum over
habitat types of the wildlife density in a habitat type times
the area of that habitat lost. This assumes that the species
• of interest is effectively immobile or that habitat is limited.
An approach that allows the user to apply a value
systematically to a habitat was developed by the U.S. Fish
and Wildlife Service (FWS) (Farmer 1980, 1981) in
cooperation with various conservation groups and state and
other federal agencies. Called Habitat Evaluation
Procedures "(ffiiPyi trie technique is designed to provide a
consistent means ""of "assessing project development impacts
by: 1) assigning a quantitative index value for existing
habitat conditions; 2) determining the difference between
index values of existing conditions and conditions that will
result from a proposed project; and 3) demonstrating, in
habitat-value> units gained or lost, the beneficial or adverse
impacts anticipated as a result of projected development.
Thishabitat "evaluation procedure provides a framework for
determining habitatquality for specific fish and wildlife
species arid has been extended in an attempt to consider
pollution effects (U.S. Department of Interior 1987). The
FWS has programmed the models to be used interactively
on microcomputers.
1.5.8-14
-------
An investigator choosing to evaluate a particular
geographical area can select appropriate endpoint species
from a master list, and use the habitat requirements of
these species to generate a sublisting of environmental
variables that must be analyzed or quantified. After these
environmental variables are measured or evaluated in field
studies, the habitat information can be entered into the
interactive program.
The HEP output reports each habitat type in terms of its
Habitat Suitability Index (HSI), scaled from 0.0 to 1.0.
These HSIs are computed for each of the endpoint species
and, as a weighted mean, for the total area being evaluated.
The investigator can also examine intermediate model
outputs and perform a sensitivity analysis of the input
variables. The HSIs and the areas of the habitats can be
combined (by simple multiplication) to yield Habitat Units
(HUs) for each habitat category and for a series of
scenarios (target years) with varying combination of land
use.
The HEP outputs can be used to assess environmental
impacts by comparing the HUs available to each endpoint
species in pre-action and several post-action scenarios.
Additionally, if the areas of certain habitats are to be
created or enhanced through mitigation, the effects of such
changes can be compared with the unmitigated scenario.
Atkinson (1990) describes a Simplified Habitat Evaluation
(SHE) technique for biological impact assessment. SHE is
based on the theory of diversity and an assumption that as
the biological quality of an area increases so does its
diversity. A study of 132 habitat-based methods showed
that measurements of diversity obtained from SHE are
highly correlated to HEPs. Moreover, SHE can be easily
adapted to digital remote sensing imagery and the data can
be analyzed with a computerized SHE.
Landscape Mapping/Geographic Information Systems.
Sets of landscape characteristics/attributes (e.g., sensitive
habitat, cultural resources, slope, soils) can be used alone
or in combination to assess the suitability or vulnerability
of an area for various uses. Typically each -attribute of
1.5.8-15
-------
ill'1 "'it "iL1!*,,-1":1 ."is!
interest is separately mapped and relevant maps are
overlaid on a baseline map. Mapping has evolved from
hand-drawn transparency maps (McHarg 1969) to
computerized mapping systems, sometimes attached to
automatic systems of data input from satellite photos
(Westman1985). Collections of automated spatial data on
'.lj^jIscape'^aSnbutes are called geographic information
' '' i "M .felt! \.-JJU = =• , ,. ,. . . JL . . ..
-; systems (CIS) and their application in EA is increasing.
Their usefulness depends on the nature of the proposed
action, the availability of computerized data, and the EA
objectives. GIS systems can incorporate economic,
ecological, and aesthetic criteria into the process of
comparing alternatives. Decisions are then based on how
closely each"plan comes to achieving specific goals (Jensen
and Gault 1992; Attachment 4.E).
" ' •' •" • -"• •••'•;•","' "- *''":™:. ;;,:"«;',;,:':;':: ,.; :,,, /,),.;•; ,.. /, ; -^
Hopkins (1977) compares major approaches to land
suitability mapping and Westman (1985) provides three
examples of the application of computerized systems to the
study of land resources [the Boston Metropolitan Landscape
Planning Model (METLAND), the Australian CSIRO South
Coast Study (SIRO-PLAN), and the Rasmussen et al.
(1980) technique for selecting road paths through forest].
Westman (1985) notes the following limitations to GISs:
~:,-.: •;',;':;'-'''• '" '. :'• -'..''. "-'I .,.:: ::;;;,:'''''":".:':;];;. "•;;..;';,•' •"'•• •'
— In the process of constructing quantitative or
economic indexes of landscape value, much
information is lost, information is extrapolated
beyond the empirical data base, and sources of
statistical error are compounded.
...'. ;!i i.. , i
~ The spatial interdependence of landscape units is
often not accounted for (i.e., the landscape
attributes reflect the" "structural rather than the
dynamic features of the environment).
11|; j1 •' M i, ,;i ,,,
— Natural ecological boundaries are usually not
recognized (e.g., in relation to species dispersal,
water-or airshed boundaries). Hence dispersal of
air or water pollutants are typically modeled
Separately, as is movement of species between
landscape units.
1.5.8-16
I I
^^^^_^.. liia i i i, i I ,; sift.,, i iiji . „ ''n
-------
Ecological Risk Assessment. Ecological risk assessment
is a process that evaluates the likelihood that adverse
ecological effects may occur or are occurring as a result of
exposure to one or more contaminants and/or disturbances
(e.g., chemical, physical or biological agents, construction
activities) (EPA 1992, Suter 1993). The process involves
identifying hazards such as the release of a toxic chemical
to surface waters that support fisheries, and using
measurement, testing, and mathematical or statistical
models to quantify the relationship between the initiating
event and the effects. Ecological risk may be expressed in
a variety of ways. While some ecological risk assessments
may provide true probabilistic estimates of both the adverse
effect and exposure elements, others may be deterministic
(i.e., parameters are assumed to be constant and accurately
specified) or even qualitative in nature. In these cases, the
likelihood of adverse effects is expressed through a
semiquantitative or qualitative comparison of effects and
exposure.
Ecological risk assessments can help identify environmental
problems, establish priorities, and provide a scientific basis
for regulatory actions (Cohrssen and Covello 1989). The
process can identify existing risks or forecast risks of
chemical, physical or biological agents or other activities
not yet present in the environment. However, while
ecological risk assessments can play an important role in
identifying and resolving environmental problems, risk
assessments are not a solution for addressing all specific
environmental problems. For example, for protection of
habitats and endangered species, professional judgment and
the mandates of a particular statute will be the driving
forces in making decisions.
Models of interest for ecological risk assessment are
categorized into two classes: exposure models and effects
models.
Exposure models simulate the movement and
transformations of toxic contaminants in the environment.
Processes generally simulated in transportation and fate
models include the physical movement of particles and
dissolved materials, chemical transformations, and
exchanges between major compartments (e.g., air, water,
1.5.8-17
-------
i:;
1
Iliiiii,1
ill i In
;"'* ;• •
soil) of the environment. A detailed account of the use of
fate models in risk assessment can be found in Mackay and
Paterson (1993). Attachment 4.C summarizes some of the
available exposure models (e.g. multimedia, remediation,
aquatic, soil, fish uptake and food chain, atmospheric, and
spill models) which can be used for exposure estimation.
Food web models are a special subclass of fate models
often used to simulate (1) exchanges between biotic and
abiotic components of the environment and (2) transfer of
contaminants from prey to predators (Suter 1993). The
emphasis in food web models is on the biological
components of the environment, especially the movement
of materials through grazing, predation, and human
harvest. Models of DDT and PCB bioaccumulation
(Harrison et al. 1970, Thomann and Conolly 1984) and of
contaminant movement through food chains (Baes et al.
1987, Lipton and Gillett 1991) are excellent examples of
this type of model.
Effects models simulate the effects of stress on biota. This
is by far the most diverse category of models of interest in
environmental assessment (Suter 1993). The "stresses" that
have* been modeled include human exploitation,
• ' i i. • "!..'! ••«.'", i ' '":".!"'• .;': ' • I ., ,11, • ',,.11,1.1 , „ *; , ',
environmental contamination on both local and regional
scales, and, more recently, climate change resulting from
increasing atmospheric carbon dioxide. Organism-level
effects models include toxicodynamic models (Mancini
."fPlS'J j^l^':"!^ Mete 1984, Lassiter 1985, Lassiter
anl llillam 1990) that relate the risk of death of organisms
to the uptake and internal concentration of contaminants.
„_ ^_ ^---~-g-g^- ^ gro^ (Kitchell et al. 1977, Rice
et al. 1983) are also relevant to environmental assessment
but have not been extensively applied to date.
'""Me III ili"! •.i'^v&MiSS."^ /: J l;!r" -4'"1. [.','•.• /• •.•.•v,>\l-y",: > • iiii,.*, , *,\
The population-level models of current or potential use in
environmental assessment include the many models
developed for management of fish and wildlife populations.
Logan (1986) and Barnthouse et al. (1987, 1989, 1990)
have provided examples "of'the use of fisheries-derived
models in contaminant risk assessment. Although such
models Have not yet been used to assess risks of
contaminants to wildlife populations, Emlen (1989) has
13.8-18
,' 11,,
ill"1 H 'It ' it' ', :, >
it' Hliiii .ijii: • VI
-------
reviewed the available wildlife population models and
discussed their potential uses.
Community-level and ecosystem models are the most
diverse of ecological effects models. These models may be
site-specific (Kremer and Nixon 1978) or generic (O'Neill
et al., 1982). Spatial scales considered range from
microcosms (Rose et al. 1988) to regions or landscapes
(Dale and Gardner 1987). Suter and Bartell (1993) discuss
the reasons why ecosystem-level testing and ecosystem
models have not fulfilled their promise as tools for EA.
Among the reasons is the lack of clear goals. At the
ecosystem level, many endpoints have been used but none
have the endorsement of the regulatory agencies or the
scientific community. This problem is analogous to that of
not having indicators for assessment of sustainability
(Chapter 1).
A few integrated exposure/effects models that permit
changes in biotic compartments (e.g., flora, fauna) to affect
the fate of chemical contaminants have been developed
(Bartell et al. 1988). Such models are applicable
principally to cases in which (1) biota are a major sink for
contaminants (true only rarely), and (2) contamination is
sufficient to cause major disruption of the biota.
Human Health Risk Assessment. The goal of human
health risk assessment is to estimate the severity and
likelihood of harm to human health occurring from
exposure to a risk agent (e.g., a chemical substance,
biological organism, radioactive material, or other potential
substance or activity). Although U.S. regulations require
assessment of the impacts of proposed activities on the
public health and welfare, such assessments are often
lacking or inadequate in EA. Difficulties associated with
health assessment in EA are similar to those associated with
assessment of impacts on natural resources (i.e., lack of
data and knowledge regarding dose/response relationships)
and proponent concern about referring to the health impacts
of a project in terms of morbidity, disease incidence,
mortality, or projected death rates (Circuit 1988).
Human health risk assessment consists of the following
related steps (Cohrssen and Covello 1989):
1.5.8-19
-------
'a ,.
* MIIIIE •"
; X'f J|i ' |, Will
' Ifi "i lilt
"lil'illlll"!!,,' ;nf ,;«|||
1 111 |l
IS I ' ,'
I r, •
'--, Source/Release Assessment - estimates the amounts,
frequencies, and locations of the introduction,
release, or escape of risk agents (e.g., toxic
chemicals) from specific sources (e.g.,
manufacturing plants) into occupational, residential,
or outdoor environments.
1 " ' i i j|
— Exposure Assessment - provides quantitative data on
individuals, populations, or ecosystems that are, or
Jii|y be, exposed to a risk agent; the concentrations
of the risk agent; and the duration and other
/ characteristics of exposure.
— Dose-Response Assessment - provides quantitative
data on the specific amounts of a risk agent that
may reach the organs of tissues of exposed
individuals or populations and attempts to estimate
the percentage of the exposed populations that might
be harmed or injured and, where relevant, the
characteristics of such populations (for example,
sensitive subgroups such as children or the elderly).
T- Risk Characterization - integrates the results of the
previous steps into a risk statement that includes
one or more quantitative estimates of risk.
'•' ' ' " " " ' *•'•' '. ' l,i ' I'll I , ;• n
Although the approach to human health and ecological risk
assessment is conceptually similar, human health
assessment considers effects on Individuals of a single
species and has a well-defined set of values to be protected
that can be generally applied.
Economic-Demographic Assessment Models. Economic-
demographic models integrate economic, demographic,
public service, and fiscal projections that are essential for
EA of broad planning efforts. Models of this general type
have been used for macrostructural international analysis
(Sanderson 1978) and in the projection of the impacts of
resource development (Leistritz and Murdock 1981).
These models have recently been adapted to project
changes in key economic and demographic indicators for
smaller areas such as counties or individual towns (Leistritz
et al. 1990), butputfrom" the models includes projections
of:
1.5.8-20
-------
demographic factors such as total population and
population by age and gender;
economic factors such as business volume,
employment by type, personal income;
— public service demands for housing, school
enrollments, medical and criminal justice service
needs; and
public costs and revenues by type and net fiscal
balances by jurisdiction.
ISSUES
The lack of reliable baseline data is one of the major problems for
quantitative EA. It has made objective evaluation of changes in
environmental quality difficult and often impossible. Moreover,
acquiring baseline data is generally one of the most expensive and
time-consuming activities in the EA process.
Most studies of man-made impacts focus on structural responses
of individual organisms. These components are relatively sensitive
and are easy and inexpensive to measure; however, linkages of
these parameters to adverse impacts on biological populations,
communities, and ecosystems are mostly lacking. Measurements
of effects at the higher levels of organization are confounded by
natural variability, long response times, climatic variation,
pathogens, and other factors. In addition, the lack of replication
and of true control areas creates severe problems for design of
monitoring programs and testing of hypotheses concerning effects
(Sigal and Suter 1987, Jdrgensen 1991).
A mathematical model represents the synthesis of knowledge and
data and thus is dependent on the depth of understanding of the
particular system being modeled, the expertise of the modeler, and
the quality of the available data. A model cannot fill gaps in
knowledge or data. However, it can provide new understanding
about the reactions and properties of a system (Jorgensen 1991).
Generally, an ecologist, an environmental scientist, or an
environmental engineer with some knowledge of mathematics and
computer science is a better fit to developing and using ecological
and environmental models than a mathematician with some
knowledge of ecology and environmental science (Jorgensen 1991).
However, the very best development and use of environmental
models is carried out by a team representing all the relevant
1.5.8-21
-------
;;• ,"i' S"E'11 »*« "' i « i*1"! i'njsan" w •• •, ,,.i
Mr .iilifc!' "; ';". ': i, ,,,,,*)'(I1 , • i .
11 "iilid!! !'i/".
. ] » IR;
''!• "'''> I ,V''PI| ' ,i '.,
!!!!!•(! IB!
I! IK.
'"• ill' "
disciplines, such as ecology, environmental engineering,
mathematics, and computer science.
The major types of uncertainty in EA are uncertainty in impact
prediction and uncertainty in relation to decisionmaking (De Jongh
1988). The extent of the uncertainty in predictions about direct
and indirect changes in the environment depends on the data and
•"•''the methods used. Decreasing uncertainty in prediction usually
involves more sophisticated methods, additional expertise, more
resources, and almost invariably more information about the
proposed activity, the local environment, and the behavior of
possible environmental contaminants. Most predictive methods
involve either a mathematical, physical, or conceptual model of the
t environment. The sources of uncertainty in the development and
application of models include the following (De Jongh 1988):
- data collection (i.e., accuracy in measurement and sampling
and the inherent variability of environmental data);
structural error (i.e., simplification of ecological processes,
incorrect assumptions about functional relationships,
imprecise spatial and temporal resolution);
numerical error (i.e., approximations in numerical
solutions);
use outside the range of circumstances for which a model
was developed and calibrated; and
simple human mistakes.
. 'ft ! .i'>'lv"' i;":" w - „(• aril". :,,«.,; .,..,,L,, „ .
Approaches to estimating uncertainty m modeling include
sensitivity analysis and Monte Carlo error analysis (De Jongh
1988). Sensitivity analysis is a technique for identifying the
variable or parameter within a model that causes the largest change
in model output per unit variance in input. Monte Carlo analysis
is a simulation approach that estimates the variance in model
output resulting from the estimated variance in the input
parameters. Methods for reducing uncertainty in prediction are
summarized by Environmental Resources Limited (1985).
The uncertainty in decisionmaking is the result of politics and
subjective choices made during the EA process (De Jongh 1988).
These include, but are not limited, to:
- political sensitivity of the proposed action;
the choice of alternatives to be investigated;
- the choice of impacts to be studied and their relative value;
1,5.8-22
-------
definition of the limits and constraints of an assessment;
and
- confidence in impact predictions.
Management approaches to resolving uncertainty related to
decisionmaking in the EA process include decision analysis (Figure
4.3-4), amalgamation (i.e., the pulling together of many impact
variables into a few valuative indices; see Elliot 1981), better
guidelines for the application of EA, and better communication
between the proponent and the public and the assessment team and
the decisionmaker (De Jongh 1988).
DECISION ANALYSIS
Decision analysis provides a consistent method for structuring
and clarifying the decision problem. Expert opinion is used
to derive numerical estimates for subjective considerations
when objective probabilities are not available. Decision
analysis rests upon two assumptions. First, there are
incomplete data; secondly, the decisHonmaker will be
influenced by the likelihood of events occurring and the
values associated with the possible consequences. One of the
main tools in decision analysis is the "decision tree", in
which different actions, along with their likely consequences,
resulting from alternative decisions are shown systematically
in graphical form.
FURTHER ACTON
Figure 'f.B-'K
A decision tree for the problem of groundwater contamination.
(Source: DeJongh 1988)
1.5.8-23
-------
There are no procedures for the systematic integration of the
environmental components of a study with the social and economic
aspects. It is possible in some instances to construct ecological-
«j^8pfftie models, ibut such models| are not yet sufficiently well
developed to give reliable results (Jtfrgetisen1991, Kjeldsen-Kragh
1991).
LINKAGES
Impact analysis is linked to all of the EA elements. During initiation and
scoping, alternatives and issues requiring in-depth analysis are identified. Any
croSs-media (e.g., effects of air pollutants on water quality) and cross-impact
(e.g., effects of wetland loss on waterfowl) linkages are determined and the
assessment endppints are identified. Other applicable laws and regulations (e.g.
for permits) are identified and reviewed for any specific requirements for analysis
related to the proposed action and the issues of interest. The result of impact
analysis should be a succinct, comparative presentation of information about the
proposed alternatives for use by the decisionmaker and the public. It identifies
areas where monitoring and/or mitigation are needed. Thus, it forms the basis
for post-decision analysis and follow-up.
(ill
r'» hi 1 »• I!,:1'"
Vffli, Mf iriU
o :' i -
iii1 '\>
REFERENCES
Andrews, R. N. L. 1988. Environmental impact assessment and risk
assessment: learning from each other. In: Environmental Impact
11 || '(111 Jill lUrmMPii.-:'..'*'*'" • > !-" S ,. , -. >._,,,. v ~~ • „
Assessment, Theory and Practice (ed. P. Wathern). Unwin Hyman,
Boston, Massachusetts. 332 pp.
Asher, S. C., K. M. Lloyd, D. Mackay, S. Paterson, and J. R. Roberts. 1985.
A Critical Examination of Environmental Modeling - Modeling the Fate
of Chlorobenzenes Using the Persistence and Fugacity Models. National
Research Council of Canada, Report Number NRCC 23990.
I''1-'1 a:,.::'1*;1':! "il1!!! ST , pant!''; a,,
Atkjppn, S. F. 1985. Habitat-based methods for biological impact assessment.
ifie'"Environmihtal Professional 7:265-282.
Si Fl !$$&. A simplified habitat evaluation for use with remote
sensing data. The Environmental Professional 12:122-130.
'"''i ;: "S
u, /'L5.8-24
-------
Baes, C. F. IE, C. T. Garten, Jr., and V. R. Tolbert. 1987. Long-Term
Problems of Land Contaminated by Nonradioactive Hazardous Chemicals:
Sources, Impacts, and Counter Measures. ORNL-6239. Oak Ridge
National Laboratory. (Available from National Technical Information
Service, U.S. Department of Commerce, 5285 Port Royal Road,
Springfield, Virginia 22161.)
Baker, J. P., D. P. Bernard, S. W. Christensen, M. J. Sale, J. Freda, K.
Heltcher, P. Scanlon, P. Stokes, G. Suter, and W. Warren-Hicks. 1990.
Biological Effects of Changes in Surface Water Acid-Base Chemistry.
State-of-Science/Technology. Report 13. National Acid Precipitation
Program, Washington, D.C.
Bamthouse, L. W., G. W. Suter II, and A. E. Rosen. 1989. Inferring
population-level significance from individual-level effects: an
extrapolation from fisheries science to ecotoxicology. In: Aquatic
Toxicology and Environmental Fate: llth Volume (eds., G. W. Suter,
H and M. A. Lewis). ASTM STP 1007. American Society for Testing
and Materials, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania.
Bamthouse, L. W., G. W. Suter II, and A. E. Rosen. 1990. Risks of toxic
contaminants to exploited fish populations: influence of life history, data
uncertainty, and exploitation intensity. Environmental Toxicology and
Chemistry 9:297-311.
Bamthouse, L. W., G. W. Suter 11,-A. E. Rosen, and J. J. Beauchamp. 1987.
Estimating responses of fish populations to toxic contaminants.
Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry 6:811-824.
Bartell, S. M., R. H. Gardner, and R. V. O'Neill. 1988. An integrated fate and
effects model for estimation of risk in aquatic systems. In: Aquatic
Toxicology and Hazard Assessment: 10th Volume (eds., W. J. Adams,
G. A. Chapman, and W. G. Landis). American Society for Testing and
Materials, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania.
Bonazountas, M., and J. M. Wagner. 1984. SESOIL - A seasonal soil
compartment model. Arthur D. Little Co., Cambridge, Massachusetts.
Bonazountas, M., A. Brecker, and R. G. Vranka. 1988. Mathematical
environmental fate modeling. Chapter 5. In: Environmental Inorganic
Chemistry, (eds., I. Bodek, W. J. Lyman, W. F. Reehl and D. H.
Rosenblatt). Pergamon Press, New York.
1.5.8-25
-------
nil
impii
Ill II II
V in,
Bregman, J. I., and K. M. Mackenthun. 1992. Environmental Impact
gtatements. Lewis Publishers, Inc., Boea Raton, Florida. 279 pp.
'"" :;:"'1""" : ''••"' : : ' ":::"!:; ':/; •- "" '•' — : —f':. ':*.'••:•.;. :••: ••
Brown, D. S., and J. D. Allison. 1987. MINTEQAI Equilibrium Metal
Speciation Model: A User's Manual. U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, Environmental Research Laboratory, Athens, Georgia.
Brown, D. S., and A. Silver. 1986. Chemical spill exposure assessment. Risk
Analysis 6:291-298.
Burns, L. A., D. M. Cline, and R. R. Lassiter. 1981. Exposure Analysis
••'|Modeling Systems (EXAMS): User Manual and System Documentation.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Environmental Research
"'laboratory', Athens, Georgia.
•' '' ' |i ,
,,
Canter, L. W. 1977. Environmental Impact Assessment. McGraw-Hill Book
Company, New York. 331pp.
•I- *i I" < ii ill,'.! ,
Cared, R. F., C. N. Smith, L. A. Mulkey, J. D. Dean, and P. Jowise. 1984.
User's Manual for the Pesticide Root Zone Model (PRZM). EPA-600/3-
84-109. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Environmental Research
Laboratory, Athens, Georgia!
Chalmers, J. A., and E. J. Anderson. 1977. Economic-Demographic
Assessment Manual: Current Practices, Procedural Recommendations and
a Test Case. U.S. Bureau of Reclamation, Denver.
Christensen, S. W., W. Van Winkle, and J. S. Mattice. 1976. Defining and
determining the; significance of impacts: concepts and methods. In: The
Biological Significance of Environmental Impacts (eds., R. K. Sharma,
J. D. Buffington, and J. T. McFadden). NCR-CONF-002, U.S. Nuclear
Regulatory Commission, Washington, D.C.
Qark, K. E., F.A.P.C. Gobas, and D. Mackay. 1990. Model of organic
chemical uptake and clearance by fish from food and water.
Environmental Science and Technology 24:1203-1213.
••• • '."'" ...I. ,; ;,,"'",;,. ';~. "Vl /;;/ ^, • | •.
Cohen, Y. 1986. Pollutants in a Multimedia Environment. Plenum Press, New
York. " • • ' ....
1.5.8-26
-------
Cohrssen, J. J., and V. T. Covello. 1989. Risk Analysis: A Guide to
Principles and Methods for Analyzing Health and Environmental Risks.
U.S. Council on Environmental Quality, Executive Office of the
President. 407pp. Available from: The National Technical Information
Service, U.S. Department of Commerce, 5285 Port Royal Road,
Springfield, VA 22161. NTIS Order Number PB89-137772.
Connell, D. W. 1989. Bioaccumulation of Xenobiotic Compounds. CRC Press,
Boca Raton, Florida.
Dale, V. I., and R. H. Gardner. 1987. Assessing regional impacts of growth
declines using a forest succession model. Journal of Environmental
Management 24:83-93.
De Jongh, P. 1988. Uncertainty in EIA. In: Environmental Impact Assessment
(ed. P. Wathern). Unwin Hyman, Boston. 332 pp.
Dickson, K. L., A. W. Maki, and J. Cairns (eds.). 1982. Modeling the Fate of
Chemicals in the Environment. Ann Arbor Science Publishers, Ann
Arbor, Michigan.
Elliot, M. L. 1981. Pulling the pieces together: amalgamation in environmental
impact assessment. Environmental Impact Assessment Review 2:11-38.
Emlen, J. M. 1989. Terrestrial population models for ecological risk
assessment: a state-of-the-art review. Environmental Toxicology and
Chemistry 8:831-842.
Enfield, G. C., R. F. Carsel, S. Z. Cohen, T. Phon, and D. M. Walters. 1982.
Approximating pollutant transport to groundwater. Ground Water 20:711-
727.
Environmental Resources Limited (ERL). 1984. Prediction in Environmental
Impact Assessment. EIA Publication Series No. 17. The Hague:
Ministeries of Housing, Physical Planning and Environment and of
Agriculture and Fisheries.
Environmental Resources Limited (ERL). 1985. Handling Uncertainty in
Predictions. EIA Publication Series No. 19. The Hague: Ministries of
Housing, Physical Planning and Environment and of Agriculture and
Fisheries.
Farmer, A. 1980. Habitat Evaluation Procedures (HEP). ESM 102. Division
of Ecological Sciences, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Washington, D.C.
1.5.8-27
-------
III
Farmer, A. 1981. Standards for the Development of Habitat Suitability Index
Models. ESM 103. Division of Ecological Sciences, U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service, Washington, D.C.
Fite, E. C., L. W. Turner, N. J. Cook, and C. Stunkard. 1988. Guidance
Document for Conducting Terrestrial Field Studies. U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Washington, D.C.
Gauch, H G., Jr. 1982. Multivariate Analysis in Community Ecology.
Cambridge University Press. New York. 298 pp.
Glddings, I. M. 19867 A microcosm procedure for determining safe levels of
chemical exposure in shallow-water communities. In: Community
Toxicity Testing (ed. J. Cairns, Jr.). American Society for Testing and
Materials. Philadelphia, Pennsylvania.
Gilliland, M. W., and P. G. Risser. 1977. The use of systems diagrams for
environmental impact assessment: procedures and an application.
Ecological Modeling 3:183-209.
" ........................ •' .............. * ' . ..... : : ' '• -;;"i 'i1 ' :i .i; • ,„; ....... '• ..... . '•• .'• ,' Jii; ; ;i is, , pa ......... .a •& i ..... i ,„;„ ; , ? i ,;;,| j , ';•; ~ •,, j;. .• .; f • ", ... • -. • „:» .
Giroult, E. 1988. WHO interest in environmental health impact assessment. In:
Environmental Impact Assessment, Theory and Practice (ed. P. Wathern).
Unwin Hyman, ....... Itostbfu ........ 332 ...... pp. [[[
Goodman, D. 1976. Ecological expertise. In: Boundaries of Analysis, An
Enquiry into the Tocks Island Dam Controversy (eds., H. A. Feiveson,
F. W. Sinden, and R. H. Socolow). Ballinger, Cambridge,
Massachusetts.
Goodyear, C. P. 1972. A simple technique for detecting effects of toxicants or
other stresses on a predator-prey interaction. Transactions of the
American Fisheries Society 101:367-370.
Green, R. H. 1979. Sampling Design and Statistical Methods for Environmental
Biologists! John Wiley & Sons, New York. 257 pp.
: ..,. .. .'..:.. ,::;,." ' „: L: :;:..: :;:: j
Hall, C. A. S., and J. W. Day. 1977: Ecosystem Modeling in Theory and
Practice. John Wiley & Sons, New York.
Harrison, H. L., O. L. Loucks, J. W. Mitchell, D. F. Parkhurst, C. R. Tracy,
D. Watts, and V. J. Yannacone, Jr. 1970. Systems studies of DDT
transport. Science 170:503-508.
1.5.8-28
«' «J!»yil!,ll!!i ! IIIIiiK. .. ' 'a •,. f f,[ .(ijli! • , ijii; ,/, HI ;,, iji i j,,
IH" !'-"• lli.!",,;11',, irf/liilll.',,; • .11 ):• ,!••'
-------
Hetrick, D. M., and L. M. McDowell-Boyer. 1983. User's Manual for
TOXSCREEN: A Multimedia Screening-Level Program for Assessing the
Potential Fate of Chemicals Released to the Environment. Draft report.
Oak Ridge National Laboratory, ORNL/TM-8570, Office of Pesticides
and Toxic Substances, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
Washington, D.C. Contract No. W-7405-eng-26.
Hilborn, R., and C. Walters. 1981. Some Pitfalls of Environmental Baseline
and Process Studies. Report 3. Cooperative Fisheries Research Unit,
University of British Columbia, Vancouver.
Hopkins, L. D. 1977. Methods for generating land suitability maps: a
comparative evaluation. Journal of the American Institute of Planners
43:386-400.
Hunsaker, C. T., and R. L. Graham. 1991. Regional ecological assessment for
air pollution. In: Air Pollution: Environmental Issues and Health Effects
(eds., S. K. Majumdar, E. W. Miller, and J. Cahir). Pennsylvania
Academy of Sciences, Easton, Pennsylvania.
Jensen, J., and G. Gault. 1992. Electrifying the impact assessment process.
The Environmental Professional 14:50-59.
Jdrgensen, S. E. 1991. Environmental management modeling. In: Introduction
to Environmental Management (eds., P. E. Hansen and S. E. Jdrgensen).
Elsevier, New York. 403 pp.
Jdrgensen, S. E. 1991. Ecological aspects. In: Introduction to Environmental
Management (eds., P. E. Hansen and S. E. Jdrgensen). Elsevier, New
York. 403pp.
Jdrgensen, S. E. 1988. Fundamentals of Ecological Modeling. Elsevier, New
York. 389 pp.
Jdrgensen, S. E. (ed.). 1984. Modelling the Fate and Effect of Toxic
Substances in the Environment. Elsevier, Amsterdam.
Jury, W. A., W. F. Spencer, and W. J. Fanner. 1983. Behavior assessment
model for trace organics in soil. Journal of Environmental Quality
12:558-564.
1.5.8-29
-------
Kitchell, J. F., D. J. Stewart, and D. Weininger. 1977. Applications of a
bioenergetics model to yellow perch (Perca flavescens") and walleye
(Stizostedion vitreuro vitreum't. Journal of the Fisheries Research Board
of Canada 34:1922-1935.
Kjeldsen-Kragh. 1991. Environmental economics. In: Introduction to
Environmental Management (eds., P. E. Hansen and S. E. Jorgensen).
Elsevier, New York. 403 pp.
Klein, W., W. Kordel, A. W. Klein, D. Kuhnen-Clausen, and W. Weiss. 1988.
Systematic approach for environmental hazard ranking of new chemicals.
Chemosphere 7:1445-1462.
I
Kooijman, S. A. L. M., and J. A. J. Metz. 1984. On the dynamics of
chemically stressed populations: the deduction of population consequences
from effects on individuals. Ecotoxocology and Environmental Safety
8:254-274.
Kremer, J. N., and S. W. Nixon. 1978. A Coastal Marine Ecosystem:
Simulation and Analysis. Springer-Verlag, New York.
Lassiter, R. R. 1985. Design criteria for an predictive ecological effects
modeling system. In: Aquatic Toxicology and Environmental Fate: Ninth
Volume, ASTM STP 921, (eds., T. M. Posten and Purdy). American
Society for Testing and Materials, Philadelphia.
Lassiter, R. R., and T. G. Hallam. 1990. Survival of the fattest: implications
for acute effects of lipophilic chemicals on aquatic populations.
Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry 9:585-596.
Lein, J. 1989. An expert system approach to environmental impact assessment.
International Journal of Environmental Studies 33:13-27.
i i ,a : T '" ' ' -1'"'
Lein, J. K. 1993. Formalizing expert judgment in the environmental impact
assessment process. The Environmental Professional 15:95-102.
Leistritz, F.'IL.V'S.'H. Murdock, and R. C. Coon. 1990. Developing economic-
demographic assessment models for substrate areas. Impact Assessment
Bulletin 8:49-65.
Leistritz, F. L., and S. H. Murdock. 1981. The Socioeconomic Impact of
Resource Development: Methods for Assessment. Westview Press,
Boulder, Colorado. 286pp.
1.5^8-30
-------
Leopold, L. B., F. E. Clarke, B. B. Hanshaw, and J. R. Balsley. 1971. A
procedure for evaluating environmental impact. Circular 645. U.S.
Geological Survey, Washington, D.C.
Limburg, K. E. 1986. PCBs in the Hudson. In: The Hudson River Ecosystem,
(eds., K. E. Limburg, M. A. Moran, and W. H. McDowell). Springer-
Verlag, New York.
Lipton, J., and J. W. Gillett. 1991. Uncertainty in ocean dumping health risks:
influence of bioconcentration, commercial fish landings and seafood
consumption. Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry 10:967-976.
Logan, D. T. 1986. Use of size-dependent mortality models to estimate
reduction in fish populations resulting from toxicant exposure.
Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry 5:769-775.
Mackay, D., and S. Paterson. 1993. Exposure Assessment: Mathematical
Models of transport and fate. In: Ecological Risk Assessment (ed. G. W.
Suter n). Lewis Publishers, Inc., Chelsea, Michigan.
Mackay, D., S. Paterson, G. Cheung, and W. B. Neely. 1985. Evaluating the
environmental behavior of chemicals with a level HI fugacity model.
Chemosphere 14:335-374.
Mackay, D., 1979. Finding fugacity feasible. Environmental Science and
Technology 13:1218-1223.
Mancini, J. L. 1983. A method for calculating effects on aquatic organisms of
time varying concentrations. Water Research 17:1355-1362.
McFadden, J. T. 1977. An argument supporting the reality of compensation in
fish populations and a plea to let them exercise it. In: Assessing the
Effects of Power-Plant-Induced Mortality on Fish Populations (ed.,
W. Van Winkle). Pergamon, New York.
McHarg, I. 1969. Design with Nature. Natural History, New York.
McKone, T. E., and D. W. Layton. 1986. Screening the potential risks of toxic
substances using a multimedia compartment model: estimation of human
exposure. Regulatory Toxicology and Pharmacology 6:359-380.
National Research Council. 1986. Ecological Knowledge and Environmental
Problem-Solving: Concepts and Case Studies. National Research
Council, National Academy Press, Washington, D.C.
1.5.8-31
-------
» ai'ii,' ,,,i* s,
Illltil i,!, I"!, (("ft!
O'Neill, R. V., R. H. Gardner, L. W. Barnthouse, G. W. Suter,
S. G. Hildebrand, and C. W. Gehrs. 1982. Ecosystem risk analysis: a
new methodology. Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry 1:167-177.
Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD). 1989.
Compendium of Environmental Exposure Assessment Methods for
Chemicals. Environment Monographs, No. 27, OECD, Paris.
,; ,, .v ..... , ........ . . - • ..... •
O'Neil, R. V., B. S. Ausmus, D. R7 Jackson, R. 1. Van Hook, P. Van Voris, C.
Washburne, and A. P. Watson. 1977. Monitoring terrestrial ecosystems
by analysis of nutrient export. Water, Air, and Soil Pollution 8:271-77.
j|
Perez, K. T., E. W. Davey, N. F. Lackie, G. M. Morrison, P. G. Murphy, A.
E. Soper, and D. L. Winslow. 1984. Environmental assessment of a
phthalate ester, di(2-ethylhexyl) phthalate (DEHP), derived from a marine
microcosm. In: Aquatic Toxicology and Hazard Assessment: Sixth
Symposium (eds. W. E. Bishop, R. D. Cardwell, and B. B. Heidolph).
American Society for Testing and Materials, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania.
Rasmussen, W. O., R. N. Weisz, P. F. Folliott, and D. R. Carder. 1980.
'" ' III ...... lllllJIIISi ....... k,gl .............. '"5 .......... ..... 'ft ........ ••,',., ................... ................ ,. ............ ..... . - , . .
Planning for forest roads — a computer-assisted procedure for selection
of alternative corridors. Journal of Environmental Management 11: 94-
104. ............ ' ' .................... ......... i ...............
J. G., and D. C. WooteiE 1980. Environmental Impact Analysis
Handbook. McGraw-Hill Co., New York. 630 pp.
...................... .11 ...... r '.,' ........ I,,!, ..... i ..... ii, .......... ..... ; ..... .. ...... . , .............. : rr
......... ' ..... ' ' ' ..... "' - '" ' ...... ....... II" • ......... ,
-------
Senes Consultants. 1989. Contaminated Soil Cleanup in Canada, Volume 5,
Development of the AERIS Model, Final Report prepared for the
Decommissioning Steering Committee.
Shugart, H. H., and D. C. West. 1980. Forest succession models. BioScience
30:308-313.
Sigal, L. L., and G. W. Suter II. 1989. Potential effects of chemical agents on
terrestrial resources. Environmental Professional 11: 376-384.
Sigal, L. L. and G. W. Suter, n. 1987. Evaluation of methods for determining
adverse impacts of air pollution on terrestrial ecosystems. Environmental
Management 11:675-694.
Snedecor, G. W., and W. G. Cochran. 1980. Statistical Methods. The Iowa
State University Press, Ames, Iowa. 507 pp.
Suter, G. W. n, and L. W. Barnthouse. 1993. Assessment concepts. In:
Ecological Risk Assessment (ed. G. W. Suter n). Lewis Publishers, Inc.,
Chelsea, Michigan.
Suter, G. W. n, and S. M. Bartell. 1993. Ecosystem level. In: Ecological
Risk Assessment (ed. G.W. Suter n). Lewis Publishers, Inc., Chelsea,
Michigan.
Suter, G. W. n. 1993. Ecological Risk Assessment. Lewis Publishers, Inc.,
Chelsea, Michigan. 538 pp.
Suter, G. W. n, and F. E. Sharpies. 1984. Examination of a proposed test for
effects of toxicants on soil microbial processes. In: Toxicity Screening
Procedures Using Bacterial Systems (eds. D. Liu and B. J. Butka).
Marcel Dekker, New York.
Swartzman, G. L., and S. P. Kaluzny. 1987. Ecological Simulation Primer.
MacMillan Publishing, New York.
Thomann, R. V. 1989. Bioaccumulation model of organic chemical distribution
in aquatic food chains. Environmental Science and Technology 23:699-
707.
Thomann, R. V., and J. P. Conolly. 1984. Model of PCB in the Lake Michigan
lake trout food chain. Environmental Science and Technology 18:65-71.
1.5.8-33
-------
11"
ill 1
""111! ! Hi'
1 1
i !
I11
I
iiini
in i
i
Thomann, R. V. 1972. Systems Analysis and Water Quality Management.
McGraw-Hill, New York.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 1987. Toxic Substances Control
Act Test Guidelines; Proposed Rules. Federal Register 52:36334-36371.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 1992. Framework for Ecological
Risk Assessment. EPA/630/R-92/001.
1. ,
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 1993. Habit Evaluation:
Guidance for the Review of Environmental Impact Assessment
Documents.
U.S. Department of Interior. 1987. Type B technical information documents
PB88-100128-PB88-100169. Washington, D.C.
Van Voris, P., D. A. Tolle, and M. F. Arthur. 1985. Experimental Terrestrial
SoU-Core Microcosm Test Protocol. EPA 600/3-85-047. National
Technical Information Service, Springfield, Virginia.
i
»' ,<' ., "„ i,'f ,j|t In U ' „ I,,,!!,. , •„,!; < |;i;|i|f,
Walters, C. J. 1986. Adaptive Management of Renewable Resources.
Macmillan, New York.
Wathern, P. 1988. An introductory guide to EIA. In: Environmental Impact
Assessment, Theory and Practice (ed. P. Wathern). Unwin Hyman,
Boston. 332 p.
West, D. C., S. B. McLaughlin, and H. H. Shugart. 1980. Simulated forest
response to chronic air pollution stress. Journal of Environmental Quality
, " III1, 9:43-49.
I11' I I 111 I , I T|| "I , . , •.„. .•. : , , , I,,, „,,, ,„ , , . ..,,
1 '' illllPffll'ill Ml.Ill" "I,"If'" ', I!1,:1"! I h";.,,!,;,, "h ' , ',l,|| «\ •' ,i .'
Westman, W. E. 1985. Ecology, Impact Assessment arid Environmental
Planning. John Wiley & Sons, New York. 532 pp.
"'* , '« i,,, ',» ii iiii
1.5.8-34
-------
SUMMARY OF FATE MODELS USED IN ENVIRONMENTAL
ASSESSMENT
Summary of Fate Models used in Environmental Assessment. (Source: Mackay, D.,
and S. Paterson. 1993. Exposure assessment: mathematical models of transport and
fate. In: Ecological Risk Assessment (ed. G. W. Suter, II). Lewis Publishers, Inc.,
Chelsea, Michigan)
1.5.9-1
-------
II I II 111 II
II II II
I Illlllllll 111 III II III III II III 111 111
Z-6'S'l
4PI;'',i , .mi11,.
III..'! ;,: '! LI. ".iiHi I'm i ,, liiiiii.-'"'!: >\,,, •„
-------
Summary of Fate Models used in Environmental Assessment. (Source: Mackay. D.,
and S. Paterson. 1993. Exposure assessment: mathematical models of transport and fate.
In: Ecological Risk Assessment (ed. G. W. Suter, II). Lewis Publishers, Inc.,
Chelsea, Michigan)
This attachment provides a list of some of the models that can be used for exposure estimation.
It is not a comprehensive list. The reader should 'Consult Mackay and Paterson (1993) for
additional information about this list. Reviews of available models are also found in Cohen
(1986), OECD (1989), Dickson et al. (1982), and Jorgensen (1984). See references to Part 4.3
for citations.
MULTIMEDIA MODELS
A series of fugacity-based (i.e., fate) models has been developed in the last
decade at the University of Toronto by Mackay and co-workers (Mackay, 1979,
Mackay and Paterson, 1993, Mackay et al., 1985). They vary in complexity
from a simple equilibrium distribution of a conservative chemical, to steady state
and time varying descriptions of the fate of reactive compounds. These models
are primarily useful for predicting the fate of chemicals in multimedia systems.
GEOTOX. GEOTOX (McKone and Layton, 1986) is a comprehensive
multimedia compartmental model which calculates chemical partitioning,
degrading reactions and diffusive and non-diffusive interphase transport. The
concentrations estimated for various environmental compartments are
subsequently combined with appropriate human inhalation and ingestion rates, and
absorption factors to calculate exposure. It treats an environment representative
of the South Eastern United States, consisting of the following compartments: air
(gas), air (particles), biomass, upper soil, lower soil, groundwater, surface wat r
and sediments.'
Enpart (Environmental Partitioning Model). Enpart (OECD, 1989) is one of
a set of models developed by the EPA as a first level screening tool for new and
existing organic chemicals of possible concern. It is a fugacity-based model
which estimates the steady-state equilibrium or dynamic partitioning of organic
chemicals among environmental compartments. It identifies dominant pathways
and data gaps and estimates the chemicals' persistence and bioconcentration
potential.
Toxscreen. Toxscreen (Hetrick and McDowell-Boyer, 1983) is a time-dependent
multimedia model, developed by the EPA to. assess the potential for
environmental transport and accumulation of chemicals released to the air, surface
1.5.9-3
-------
water or soil. It is modular in concept and incorporates intermedia transfer
processes. It is intended as a screening tool to assess the human exposure
potential of organic chemicals.
£SA WWdtJWiJ* Afc- *U 4-l*b««AtUW%A Ud
potential of organic chemicals
Environmental Exposure Potentials (EEP). EEP (Klein et al., 1988) is a
fugacity-based equilibrium multi-compartment model used by member states of
the European Community to determine exposure potential of new organic
chemicals. The methodology is applied to chemicals being imported or produced
in quantities of 1 metric ton per year or more.
•IK
" '' I SIMPLESAL. SIMPLES AL (OECD, 1989) is a spreadsheet-based multimedia
•' fugacity cmnpartaerital micxjel which" can be'used to'esimate steady state' or time-
dependent concentrations of organic compounds as well as heavy metals. It
determines dominant environmental pathways and processes for contaminants and
was designed for use in The Netherlands as a screening tool to predict results of
various scenarios for emission control of new and existing chemicals such as
benzene, cadmium, lindane and copper. It considers compartments of air, water,
suspended solids, aquatic biota, sediment and soil.
ill II III I III I I I III i I 111 i 111 , t..' |:, <".• ' •' i '' : "
• REMEDIATION MODELS
« ' ' ' !l ' "
i
: : ; • :;-;; |4ERIS. AERIS (Senes Consultante, 1989) is a n^time^ia risk ass^mimt modej.
that estimates environmental concentrations and subsequently human exposure in
the vicinity of contaminated land sites. It is intended for use at sites where
redevelopment is being considered. The model is novel in that is runs within a
user-friendly expert system programming environment. An "intelligent"
preprocessor interrogates the user about the redevelopment scenario to be
assessed, assisting the user where necessary, or supplying default values.
• AQUATIC MODELS
ill i i. ., i in
i
Persistence. The persistence model (Roberts et al., 1981; Asher et al., 198-/J
was developed for the National Research Council of Canada as a screening
method to estimate the fate of various organic chemicals but especially pesticides
which are released into the aquatic environment. It considers four compartments:
water, catch-all (representing suspended solids, invertebrates or other components
of water systems excluding fish), sediment, and fish. It calculates both a steady-
state or fixed solution and a time-dependent solution. Default environments for
the model are a Standard Pond and a Standard Lake simulating a small, eutrophic
pond and a deep oligotrophic lake. Removal pathways include photodegradation,
volatilization, and hydrolysis in water; biodegradation in fish; and microbial
degradation in suspended solids and sediments.
1.5.9-4
-------
EXAMS - Exposure Analysis Modeling System. EXAMS (Burns et al.. 1981)
is an interactive mass balance model developed at the EPA Research Laboratory
in Athens, Georgia, which predicts the fate of organic contaminants in stratified
surface waters as a result of continuous or intermittent releases. It is widely used
by EPA and other environmental agencies in the U.S.
EXWAT. EXWAT (OECD, 1989) is a steady state model, developed in
Germany, to describe chemical fate in water bodies. It is a simple approach
suitable for application to continuous single point sources. It is intended for use
as a screening tool to assess comparative hazards of existing chemicals in the
Rhine River. It is also a submodel of the multimedia E4CHEM system (Exposure
and Ecotoxicity Estimation for Environmental Chemicals), an exposure and
hazard assessment model developed in Germany for priority setting within
OECD.
Inorganic Chemical Models (e.g., metals and phosphorus). Modeling of
inorganic compounds in the aquatic and other environments proves to be more
difficult in the sense that the chemical properties and speciation tend to be unique,
thus the generalizations which apply to organic chemicals do not usually apply.
Bonazauntas et al. (1988) have reviewed fate models for such chemicals.
Speciation Models, e.g., MINTEQAL MINTEQAI (Brown and Allison, 1987)
is an example of an equilibrium metal speciation model applicable to metallic
contaminants in surface and groundwaters. It is thus quite different in purpose
from the mass balance models discussed earlier. It calculates the equilibrium
aqueous speciation, adsorption, gas phase partitioning, solid phase saturation
states, and precipitation-dissolution of 11 metals (arsenic, cadmium, chromium,
copper, lead, mercury, nickel, selenium, silver, thallium and zinc). It contains
an extensive thermodynamic base and is designed to make minimal demands on
the user.
SOIL MODELS
Several models have been developed to describe chemical fate in soils. Notable
are SESOIL [a Seasonal Soil Compartment Model, OECD, (1989)], Bonazountas
and Wagner (1984), PRZM (Pesticide root zone model) by Carsel et al. (1984),
PEST AN (Pesticide Analytical Model) by Enfield et al. (1982), and the "Jury"
Model by Jury et al. (1983).
FISH UPTAKE AND FOOD CHAIN MODELS
Because of the importance of the human exposure route via fish consumption,
considerable effort has been devoted to estimating chemical concentrations in fish.
Contaminants may enter fish via the gills (bioconcentration) and, especially in the
1.5.9-5
-------
case of hydrophobic chemicals, by way of food (biomagnification). These
pathways are the subject of discussion in recent examples by Thomann (1989),
Clark et al. (1990) and the text by Connell (1989).
ATMOSPHERIC MODELS
j
Numerous air dispersion models with general or limited geographic applicability
have been developed with the objective of deducing ground level concentrations,
aid hence exposures, from stack emissions. Most texts or handbooks on air
pollution contain full descriptions of such models. Models range from simple
application of Gaussian dispersion equations to complex, multi-source models
containing allowances for depositing particles and topographic features of the
terrain. The "use of such models is often written into legislation as a means of
translating desired ground level concentrations into acceptable stack emission
rates". ••• •— •••••-
SPILL MODELS
i" ' '"' n - - •
Several models are available that deduce the fate of chemical spills. These are
often used to provide guidance for spill response personnel. An example is the
POSSM (PCB On-site Spill Model) described by Brown and Silver (1986). Most
regulatory agencies and many industries concerned with the marine environment
(e.g., the Coast Guard) have available models which can describe the movement
and fate of spills of materials such as oil, when subject to variable winds and
currents. l!
1.5.9-6
-------
PROBLEMS ASSOCIATED WITH AMALGAMATION OF DATA
Elliot, M. L. 1981. Pulling the pieces together: amalgamation in environmental impact
assessment. Environmental Impact Assessment Review 2:11-38.
1.5.10-1
-------
1.5.10-2
.''"Ili""! • '"''i;'1 "i''1"!' / V!: :|11111 '!l111 "• • •'!,
',,,1 ,i" ' K««. "!,' .', • ,,p r..'
-------
s
a
&
Gr:iiid Tclon
Pulling the Pieces
Together:
Amalgamation in
Environmental
Impact Assessment
Michael Lawrence Ellioll
Mil hue! Elliott is an inslrudor and doctoral candidate in tlir
Department <>/ Vrban Studies and Manning at the Afnitnr/m-
selt\ Institute (i/ Technology. Cambridge, Alautir/iufrttt. In jail
W8I. he will be a I'. O. Key Fellow at the Joint Center for I'rban
Studies of MIT and Harvard University.
It may seem counterintuitive, hut the more effectively eriviroiuneniiil
impacts arc specified, the mote difficult (he problem of dioosini;
among project or policy options becomes. Impact specification, if
done well, should cause decision makers to consider tiadeoffs they h;id
not previously considered. The more impacts enumeiaied in an envi-
ronmental assessment, the tic bet the array of iiadcoffs. The moir
obvious the tradeoffs, the moie complex the task of evaluation.
To facilitate the evaluation task of the decision maker, envitou-
mental analysts have experimented with a wide vaiiely of environmen-
tal impact statement (EIS) presentation techniques. The tradition;*)
presentation technique of listing all potential impacts is of little use i<>
either decision makers or public interest gtoups. Many analysis, tlicic-
fore, have attempted to meet the infottnation needs of the KIS n add |>y
summarizing and by directly computing policy or project opiinus
based on the significance of the impacts.
In the absence of scientific and political consensus about wluil
constitutes a desirable environment, analysis have found (his task ol
pulling the pieces together rather clilfit nil. Scientific ally, many c|ti;ili •
-------
tff^m
m
n-•"> «
ISs
IK
in
tiesBjf tlicicirviroinneni irriost rekvajrt to public polic;y;are those
i,; ,amenahle jto di,rect measurement, and many changes in qualities ihatj^
'are measurable ate not easily predicted. Politically disparate sectors
=(he community perceive arrd value lire same impacts differently."*=
..'-. Taken together, EIS data (pariicularly forecasts and evaluations)
i1 Ifrcquenlly scientifically inconclusive and value-laden, JI
EISs, however, carr be irrforrnative without being completely^
: ; ^objective or value-free. To reconcile (*oni|K'ting social goals,
-.makers icquire irrfoimaiion that discriminates between policy
(boices. The simplification of environmental data carr be misleading
i unless it simultaneously clarifies the potential impact oieach alterna-
: live. If an EIS is to reveal rather than obscure the choices available, thejl*
assumplions behind (he methods of data manipulation must beexarn-ip
irred carefully. >"
; M This article, then, is about ways of manipulating EIA daia—4n
ways that are analytically correct and ways that are faulty. More
' specifically, the article focuses orr how analysts convert disassociated^
'.!; i sets of predicted impacts (many of which are difficult to quantify) into
:-; 'comprehensive indices of environmental quality. I am calling this^
•process amalgamation because the lerrrr best captures the pulling
,1,1 together of many impact variables into a few evaluative indices for*,:
Ln: presentation in an EIS. *}
^ To help us belter understand (he problems associated with;
^amalgamation, the EIA process used for the Jackson, Wyoming^
wastewater treatment plant will be described first. This process is?;
: typical of the tweniy-orre environmental impact assessment processes^
> studied at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) last
• summer,' with one important exception: (he Jackson EIS is presented
' in a concise format that employs a comprehensive method for amalga-
; mating and evaluating impacts. The Jackson story is illustrative off
! how and why amalgamative methods are used, as well as how an
: fits into the decision-making process. Using (he case, we will look at a
• wide range of amalgamative methods, arrd conclude with lessons that
can be drawn from the discussion.
THE JACKSON EIA PROCESS: KEY ANALYTIC PROBLEMS :
Jackson is a rapidly growing city in the foothills of the Teton moun-a
tairr range.2 The town is largely surrounded by federal land. Since-
1972, the town's wastewater treatment plant had been out of com-^
pliance with state and federal regulations. The town could only grow
south, and so proposed to locate a new plant six miles to the south of
the town line, which would accommodate all future private develop-,:
mem in the Jackson-South Pink area. Simultaneously, T;.ion County^
was preparing a comprehensive plan and zoning restrrcti""r. whicht:
were expected to severely limit growth in South Park. '1 he c mrntyS
therefore. --<*ued that Jackson should upgrade its existing plant to
town growth orrly. *«
Hi
W!
' =! -iipJi « >
Because the wasiewatertjireatmeni .plant was to bciburlt with
federal moneys on a wildlife preserve, a'rv.ElS was required. In add!-?
-iron, the U.S. Environmental Protection JAgency (EPA) saw the ElAi
process as an opportunity to intervene in [the dispute. EPA suggested!
seven alternatives for the treatment of the wastewaier.These included*
two process methods (a mechanical treatment plain and a stal>ili7;iti|>>ik • |i
Tl t^anduiMtoi r7
I fomiilml j
LINK ASSEUMKNT II) INrUHMATKlN NtF.IISor MS I'SFM U»»>T - M«r l»»l
ii:
Jft
Steps followed in the environmental impact assessment
process ol the Jackson wastewater treatment plant project.
-------
cull io:,, ..;,HH e the project li;ul mult iple effects, data on environmental
conditions weie not specifically collected for the assessment, and
institutional boundaries did not always coincide with the location of
impacts. Alternatives had to he generated even though guidelines for
selecting appropiialc alternatives did not exist. Since environmental
conditions change even in the absence of any project, appropriate
baseline conditions had to be estimated. Expensive models and mea-
surements were required lo precisely and accurately predict the magni-
tude and distribution of those impacts that could be quantified. EPA
and two engineering consulting firms found that the effect of waste-
walei licaiuu'itl ou walei quality and estimates of capital and main-
tenance costs could be quantified, but that most other impacts could
only be qualitatively described.
The analysts then entered the final stage of the E1A process, the
stage on which this article concentrates. In this stage, (heenvironmen-
tal information collected and analyzed is linked with the informa-
tional rcquhements of political decison makers. The analysis knew
that the administrator of EPA Region VIII would not wade through
disaggregated data on fish saved, elk herds redirected, and growth
induced.1 Tradeoffs among the EIS alternatives would not be obvious
il ptedic ted impacts were listed without distinction as to their cnviron-
menial significance. To focus attention on the most important trade-
offs, predicted impacts (such as changes in dissolved oxygen and
turbidity) were amalgamated along fewer dimensions of concern (such
as water quality), with each impact and dimension of concern being
ei'aluated as to its significance.
Environmental analysts such as Eugene Odum of the Institute
of Ecology,5 Charles Solomon of the U.S. Army Engineer Waterways
F.xpei imcnt Station,6 and Norbert Dee of Baitelle Columbus Labora-
tories7 have attempted to devise standard methods for amalgamating
many impact variables into a few, more comprehensible indices. Other
analysis, such as Wes Wilson of EPA in our Jackson case study, have
created more individualized methods to be applied to a specific EIA.
Each of these nielhodscan be judged in part by its validity and clarity.
This aiiicle, without discussing all methods, discusses the basis for
devising or evaluating an amalgamaiive method." Before specifically
desc i ibing the amalgamator method employed in the Jackson EIS, let
us fiist consider the problems with amalgamtion generally.
PROBLElVfS IN AMALGAMATION
While amalgamation can greatly assist decision makers and the inter-
ested public to belter understand tradeoffs, it is open to misleading
mathematical manipulations, which can cause problem-. In the EIA
processes we studied,9 virtually all EISs were presented • !i'•••m any
attempt to amalgamate the hundreds of bits of information, 01 were
amalgamated in a manner that could easily lead to faulty or overly
confident conclusions.
Jackson Area of Telon County, Wyoming
c{Ji Existing Wastewater Treatment Plant Located on Flat Creek
A South Park Site
D Elk Feedground Site
-------
'O
o\
I
•--'•' --- " ; **=• - ~ ,
Aiiuilganuuion is difficult brcjstuse it requires that the signif-
ferric C|C»I i impacts be evaluated. The,significance of impacts can be
determined only if a common basis for comparing the magnitude of
piedic ted effects can be developed. A common basis for significance in
turn presupposes both scientific consensus on theory and political
consensus on value. Neither is readily available, particularly when
environmental impacts are being compared to the nonenvironmcnlal
costs and benefits of the proposed project. Thus, great care must be
taken to maintain the original data's uncertainty and diversity when
amalgamating data in an EIS.
Amalgamation involves the compression of information.
Amalgamation makes data more comprehensible by reducing detail,
that is to say, by discarding some information and reorganizing what
remains. The result of amalgamation is a summary judgment about
how estimated impacts of a project will affect some dimension of
environmental quality. Consequently, proper techniques for amal-
gamation will depend on both how the impacts were first measured
and how environmental quality is defined. These are problems of
scaling and weighting, of magnitude and significance.
Ikrause environmental quality cannot be directly measured,
analysts must rely on indicators of environmental quality that
can be measured or estimated. Each measure, however, is tailored to
the irrdicator in question. Consider the Jackson example. The EPA
analysts estimated flood damages and capital construction in dollars,;
BOD and phosphorus load in milligrams per liter, the elks'wintering
habitat and agricultural land in acres, and growth pressures in "signif-
icance" of effect. How can Jackson's Elk Feedground stabilization
pond proposal be compared to the alternative that upgrades the exist-
ing wastewater treatment plant? How can dollars and milligrams be
compared to acres and unquantified "pressures" when a hundred
indicators and measurements must be considered?
Proper amalgamation of several impact indicators into one
dimension of concern requires consideration of both magnitude (scal-
ing) and significance (weighting). The magnitude of an impact is the
measured or predicted change in the environment. The effect of Jack-
son's wastewater treatment plant on dissolved oxygen (DO), for ex-
ample, can in principle be estimated with some degree of certainty.
The magnitude of changes in DO for each alternative can be directly
compared. On (be other hand, magnitudes of DO and phosphorus
cannot be directly compared or aggregated. To aggregate DO and
phosphorous into a single dimension of concern (water quality), a
common scale of magnitude must be applied to each impact variable
and a model of significance must be used to weight the relative impor-
tance of each variable. Only then can the magnitudes of the two
variables be combined. Thus, the analyst must consider is r liolh
scaling and significance irr any process of amalgamation dm starts
with iryi^ tan one impact variable. These issues are not easily
resolved since great" uncertainty remains within the envhonnic-nial
sciences, and public interests frequently disagree on definitions of
environmental quality. ;
SCALING THE MAGNITUDE OF IMPACTS
Scaling is based on the levels of measurement used to,predict the
magnitude of each variable. There are four levels of measurement'.
nominal, ordinal, interval, and ratio. Nominal measurements oflci
the least precise information and ratio the most precise. Amalgama-
tion is valid only if the new composite scale is no more precise than the
least detailed data scale. Reseating data using inappropriate mathe-
matical functions or assigning nominal scaled data to ordinal or latio
scaled dimensions of concern may lead to significant errors in
amalgamation.
Nominal Scales
The least flexible level of measurement, the nominal scale, assigns
data into categories. For example, the Jackson EIS categorizes land use
into residential, agricultural, wildlife, and commercial zones. Nomi-
nal data can be reclassified into other nominal scales, but no mathe-
matical operation can be performed. Nominal data can also be
assigned to ordinal scales if the desirability of each category can be
rated or ranked. If preferences among categories cannot be deter-
mined, the nominal data cannot be compared.
Nominal scales require the least amount of quantification and
measurement and hence are used to classify variables that are difficult
to quantify. EISs are filled with lists of varieties of wildlife, yet rarely
provide bird counts, nor indicate preferences for trumpeter swans over
peregrine falcons. Likewise, changes in land use, displacement of
archaeological sites, rare and endangered species, natural hazards, and
many cultural and political patterns are either listed or classified, but
not quantified.
Nominally scaled data can only be amalgamated by combining
precise classifications of bald eagles and snail darters into composite
classes of birds and fish. Consequently, nominally-scaled impacts arc-
frequently dropped from amalgamations. An inherent bias is intro-_
duced when unquantified or imprecisely quantified data is over-
looked. Summaries that highlight unquantified data can usefully
accompany presentations of more quantified amalgamation
techniques.
Figure 2 shows an informational display technique used in
several EISs to summarize nominal data. The display technique com-
bines verbal descriptions with analytic quantifications and alluu-s all
forms of data to be summarized in one table. Obviously, as the numbei
of variables and alternatives increases, these tables can become very
complex (see Fig. 4). In addition, comments are needed to communi-
cate the potential significance of each variable. Despite umber-
-------
Figure 2. An example of information organization used in the
Haverhill, Massachusetts, Resource Recovery Plant EIS.
The original chart included three additional alternatives.
The information is presented inconsistently. Biological
impacts are ranked, noise impacts are rated, air quality is
described, and economic impacts are quantified. How do
all these impacts relate -to each other? Certainly more
consistency was possible, and a comment column could
have related the significance of each impact group to the
other impacts. (From M. Schippereii, E. Williams, and H.
Yaffee, "Site Evaluation for the Northeast Massachusetts
Resource Recovery Project," MITRE Corporation,
August 1977.)
Sleim Market!
Air Quality
Noite Impacii
Note, DEQE
Wittr/Wellindi/
Ilydfogeology
(Wctlandi. DEQEJ
(Water Pollution
Control, DEQE)
(Water Reiourcei)
Biological ImpKti
FUhetin If Wildlife
Soclo- Economic
Impact I
#1
Lowell
Sunounded by
reitdenlltl
areai. Impact
would be in
Downtown Lowell
liven ihe pre-
vailing wetter-
ly wlndi. Ac-
ccpttble, but
a relatively
poor choice.
Moderate Impact
(Potential In-
volvement with
We Hindi. Frot.
Act Small!
(No Problem*)
(#6 - Lagoon Re-
quire! Draining)
#1 - Acceptable
Full Value
Savingi * f 1.70
Unemployment
Rate • 6.6%
*S
Methuen
Near Lawrence
but ihould not
Impact ilgnlfl-
canlty on the
City due to Ihe
prevailing wind*.
Near the N.II.
border, but will
have little Im-
pact In N.II. for
the tame reaion.
Alio, r eilden-
llal area adja-
cent to lite.
Minor Impact
(Potential In-
volvement Small)
(Drainage Would
Apparently Re-
charge Wetlandi
or Go toSpkk*
ctt River)
(#1 - Moderately
Favorable)
#2 - Acceptable
Full Value
Savingi - 12.80
Unemployment
Rate - 7.9%
ft
Newburyport
Blxby Intl.
S t are n tier Inc.
Impact would be
In Newburyport
population cen-
ter, eait and
generally down*
wind of the
lite. Air qual-
ity In the area
U good and
ihould not be
downgraded. Ac-
ceptable, but •
relatively poor
choke.
Minor Impact
P.. 1
(Leill Fivori-
We)
(#6 - Sillnlly)
#7 - Lent Ac-
ceptable
Full Value
Slvlngl * 16.90
Unemployment
Rite • 8.0%
someness, tabular formats are one of (he few vehicles n'-ii'-ible for
summary presentations of not;*: tall- sailed'1 I he abiii.j m high-
light key ideas and to keep the table slu u < ,11 makes the summary
more useful to decision makers.
Ordinal Scales
Ordinal, or discrete, scales are comparative: one alternative's impa< is
are judged to be significant or insignificant, or to be greater ihiin.
equal to, or less than those of other alternatives. The Jackson EIS, f<»
example, found that the Elk Feedground location would be a moio
significant catalyst tr. growth than other alternatives. The EIS did n<>j
precisely quantify the additional growth by forecasting numbers of
new homes or loss of agricultural land.
Ordinal data are not measures of absolute magnitude, only
relative magnitude. In the absence of a standard scale with known
intervals and a common zero-point, analysts are likely toassign differ-
ent scores to the same conditions. Even if analysts could reliably assign
the same score, a rating of "excellent" or "very significant" is noi ;i
specific amount better than "satisfactory"—neither is a ranking ol
first over a ranking of second or third. The summation of ordimlly
scaled data is therefore arbitrary because different scales will lead lo
different summary points as shown in Figure 3. Algebraic operations
such as addition are therefore invalid. Unfortunately, however, EIA
analysis frequently summarize ordinal data by adding the rankings.
Impacts can be scaled ordinally using either rankings or lai-
ings. To order alternatives relative to the impact of other
alternatives—by labeling them first, second, beter or worse—is to rank
those alternatives. To order alternatives relative to a scale of signifi-
cance that is independent of other alternatives being considered-
deducing whether an impact is slight or very serious—is lo rate those
alternatives. Rankings are generally poor amalgamation techniques.
Unless one alternative clearly dominates other options, rankings (surh
as those used in Fig. 3) provide lillle information about the seriousness
of impacts or the tradeoffs needed lo make a decision. On ihe other
hand, ratings incorporate the analyst's judgment about the signifi-
cance of effects and present the decision maker with a greater under-
standing of the tradeoffs. Ratings are generally preferable to rankings.
The mosl frequently used approach lo amalgamating ordinal
data is the frequency distribution. Statements such as "85 percent of
Florida residents prefer visits lo Disney World over visits to the Ever-
glades" are easy to grasp. However, the amount of information they
provide is limited, and amalgamation beyond frequency distributions
is difficult.
Caution must be used in assessing whether an impact is being
scaled ordinally. Paired comparisons are an obvious variation of rank-
ing techniques (and hence cannot be added together), yet EIS preparcrs
have amalgamated paired comparisons into overall rankings.I0 A
more subtle misuse of ordinal data can be found in the Mcll;iif4 map
overlay technique."
Visual displays have been developed to array ordinal data, as is
shown in Figure 4. These displays, while rich in detail, are difficult to
comprehend. Small geometric shapes swim in and out of the reader's
-------
» 11
i! IB;
s i
locus.^Simpler presentations,; such askh'owiiMn Figures 2 and 8, are
icasienito read because they summarize information, at a less detailed'
level. The proper choice of detail will of course vary among impact
assessments, but in general an overly diflicuh table only creates confu-
sion. H a (able contains complex, detailed information, the preparers
should consider hicaking (he table into several charts and highlight-
I ing important impacts with comments.
Figure 3. Summary chart from (he New York Southern Tier
Expressway EIS. The original chart compared eleven
alternatives by ranking each alternative wiiliin each
problem and impact area, and then adding the ranks for a
; total score. These ranks and scores are shown for four
alternatives as the numbers outside the parentheses.
; Consider what would happen if we used this scoring
method to rank only these four alternatives. The results of
the new ranking are shown in bold type within the
parentheses. We note that concept 6 now ranks behind
concept 10 and that concept 2 ranks behind concept 9.
Why did this happen? Also note (hat environmental
impacts is only one of seven classes of problems and
* impacts. Concept 6, which ranked first out of eleven"
' alternatives, ranked tenth in environmental impacts. In
poker a chart like this would be called a stacked deck.
(Department of Transportation, Federal Highway
Administration, Southern Tier Expressway Study,
Albany, New York, September 1977.)
Concept 2 Concept 6 Concept 9 Concept 10
PROBLEMS:
Irnptove depreiied
economy
Imptoved depremd
employment and Income
Improve community
icrvicei
Improve travel
lafcly
IMPACTS; '
Economic
Social
Environmental
TOTAL PROBLEMS
ANUIMPACIS
RANK
Impiove
all tail
icrvkei
6 (9)*
' (3)
10 (4)
8 (3)
5 (3)
5 (3)
3 (2)
44 (21)
Dlh (4lh)
Completion
of Southctn
Tier
Exprcliway
1 (O
M«)
4 (2)
3d)
1 ID
6 (4)
10 (4)
27 (IS)
lit (2nd)
Incieaied
bul
lervkel
10(4)
MO
8(9)
7 (2)
10 (4)
9 (2)
1 01
48 (?«•
I0lri(9idl
Induilrial :
development !
H w :
i o) "
! (1)
10 (4)
4(2,
I ID
9 (J)
91 (14)
i'h (lit)
Figure 4.
Summary char( from (he United Kingdom North West
Water Authority Regional Water Resource Studies rcpoul.
The three alternatives displayed here are examples of (he
fifteen contained in the original. Summary charts of this
complexity provide little understandable information for
decision makers and the public. (North West Regional
Water Resources Studies, Environmental Appraisal o]
Four Water Resource Schemes, Report of the
Environmental Impact Study, United Kingdom,
November 1978.)
• Light numbers score all eIn • •• '"i!!'"-'l alternatives. Bold
numbers rescore four of (lie altcinatives.
• Strategic long term irreversible
D Strategic long term reversible
• Local long term irreversible
O Local long term reversible
O Short term reversible
A Beneficial
T Adverse
? Area of uncertain impact
Interval and Ratio Scales >
Interval, or continuous, scales are quantitative. Intervals between •
units of measurement are constant. Ten exceeds nine exactly as mitclf"
as two exceedsone. However, the zero point is arbitrary. Measurements
of the dissolved oxygen deficit of Jackson's Flat Creek is an example of ',
an interval scale. While at any point in time an assessor can estimate
the deficit, to do so he or she must arbitrarily select a point of zero
deficit. The zero point depends on (he aquatic life, mechanical fea-
tures, and temperature of the stream. A deficit of two is not twice as big
as a deficit of one, since by redefining the zero point the two and one ;
may be transformed into a five and four. Only mathematical opera-;
lions that do not affect the relative differences between units can be'
employed, division or multiplication by a constant, addition, sub-
traction, integration, and differentiation fulfill this reqi _ rit.
M
-------
Ratio scales are also quantitative. In addition to constant inter-
vals between units, ratio scales also have nonarbitrary zero points. The
total amount of phosphorus released into Flat Creek is a ratio-scaled
measurement. The zero point is fixed at the point of no release. All
mathematical operations, including multiplication by a variable,
power functions, and log transformations, are analytically justifiable
in ratio scales.
Analysts typically quantify a number of environmental condi-
tions using interval and ratio scales; water and air quality indicators,
project costs, and engineering data are common examples. Each indi-
cator quantifies the magnitude, not the significance, of impact. Attri-
butes are measured along interval or ratio scales that are tailored to
each impact. For example, area can be measured in square miles,
hectares, or acres. Two different attributes cannot therefore be amal-
gamated by simple addition. Addition would allow a characteristic
measured in large absolute numbers (e.g., square miles) to dominate
the comparison and would be arbitrary since a simple linear rescaling
of the units (from square miles to acres) could reverse the apparent
comparative value of two alternatives. Amalgamation requires the
creation of a common scale, a scale consistent with judgments about
the relative significance of the variables and along which both attri-
butes can be measured.
Two approaches to the unequal interval problem have been
developed by environmental analysts:12 standardized proportions and
quality scaling. Proportions are calculated using a standard level
selected by the analyst. The standard can be a target level (possibly
established by environmental regulations) or the highest value of each
dimension that is forecasted among the alternatives. The latter is not a
reliable method since the inclusion of a new alternative can change the
rank order of the original alternatives: Without theory to set target
levels, the standardized proportion method is arbitrary.11
To create standardized proportions, the value of each forecast is
divided by the standard level. The Oak Ridge Air Quality Index
(ORAQ1), for example, amalgamates forecasts of the concentrations of
five air pollutants by converting each of them to proportions of federal
standards, adding the five scores, and then rescaling the resulting
index to range between (en for "unpolluted" and a hundred for "com-
pletely polluted" air.14 The standardized proportions method assumes
that environmental quality decreases linearly as impacts increase. The
assumption is questionable since many environmental impacts have
threshold or synergistic effects.
Impacts can also be standardized using a postulated quality
scale. The Battelle environmental evaluation system for water-
resource development uses this procedure.15 Each dimension is calcu-
lated and converted into ;\ rating, which varies fi "to (poor
environmental quality) to one (good environmental ; • ilily). As
shown in Figure 5, the value of the rating may vary nonlinearly or
Figure 5.
Examples of environmental value functions from die
Battelle environmental evaluation system: (a) terrestrial
carrying capacity for browsers and graiers; (b) dissolved
oxygen, assuming 9 mg/l as saturation. How would you
evaluate these functions? Consider the discussion ol
dissolved oxygen in the section titled Preferences. (N. Dee
et al., Environmental Evaluation System lor Water
Resource Planning, Final report prepared by Battelle-
Columbus for the Bureau of Reclamation, January 31,
1972.)
t.o
X
20 40 60 60 ' 100%
Pticent of cwiyini cipjclly bated on anlmil unlit
10 m,M
nonmonotonically relative to observed measures. The impact of an
action on the quality of the environment is measured as the change in
the score along each dimension before and after the decision.
These standardized methods of rescaling introduce specific-
notions of "goodness." The ORAQI index is set against external
targets. Battelle standardizes a measure of quality against which the
impacts are scored. Notions of "goodness" cannot be determined
solely from scales of magnitude. They emerge from explicit (01
implicit) judgments about the significance of a variable. Combining
several variables into a common dimension of concern requires run
only careful scaling of magnitudes (as discussed in this section) but
also careful estimation of significance.
EVALUATING THE SIGNIFICANCE OF IMPACTS
Preferences
The amalgamation of impacts produces an overall ranking of prefer-
ence, not a composite measure of impact. This distinction is impor-
tant. Amalgamation of several impact variables into a common index
involves judgments about the relative importance of each variable.
-------
g:
O
These judgments, once injected into the El A process, arc indicative oL
a!|Meference for,specifir.qualities of the environment.
Considerithe following example. Dissolved oxygen (DO) is an|!
important indicator of water quality. Yet, not all groups equally -
prefer the qualities that a high DO level indicates.16 While complete;
oxygen depletion creates a lake unfit for either fish or humans, high*
levels of DO do not necessarily make the water more inviting. Ecolo-J
gists may be equally concerned with nutrient levels that could create
nlgal blooms when DO is increased. Swimmers will equally avoid
disease-carrying organisms, toxic chemicals, and turbidity. Boaters art
concerned with visual and olefactory qualities of water and with
material floating on the surface. Industrial users actually prefer a low
DO level because pipes rust in the presence of oxygen. Thus, many
indicators may be used to measure waterquality and each is likely lobe
important to different groups. Environmental impacts can be scientif-
ically estimated against some standard of quality, but a standard of
quality cannot be set except as a function of what individuals or
groups prefer or value.
Preferences also depend on risk. The evaluation of significance
is therefore complicated by the environmental analyst's frequent,
inability to prove causal relationships or accurately estimate changes
in baseline conditions. The greater or more uncertain a risk, the more
significant an impact may be evaluated. Unfortunately, few assess-:
mem techniques are explicit about risk and uncertainty.
Formal techniques for determining the relative significance of -
probable environmental impacts must be logically consistent with the
types of scales along which the impacts are measured. Different tech-; :
niqucs can be used to incorporate judgments about significance into,,
nominal, ordinal, interval, and ratio scales. Because, as we have seen,
some mathematical operations are valid only for interval or ratio
scaled data, techniques applicable to ratio scales are not necessarily
applicable to nominal scales and vice versa. In the EIA process, tech-
niques for determining significance generally fall into the two catego-
ries of screening and weighting methods.
Screening
Screening consists of "knocking out" alternatives that exceed a preset
level of impact along a particular dimension. The preset level may be
derived from a legal standard or from an analysis of the political
realities in a given situation. For example, an oil refinery site that
threatens an endangered species of bird might immediately be elimi-
nated no matter how attractive other aspects of the site were. Exclu-
sionary screening is inexpensive and requires relatively simple data.
Nominal scales can be used for screening purports. If dimen-
sions of impact can be ordc"d by significance, altem can be
screened by the most impoitant dimension first, the next most impor- j
taut ^|^d, and so on until the number of alternatives has been
W
^ r. ^-P --
II
s*,l,-lt
"13^-
«*
.Uilli.sii;
narrowed,0 Thus; ^elmayi exclude from coiisMeratibbpllsites that Ael Si
, located in marshlands or,in residential rones. Ordinally scaled data"
-------
can be used to eliminate obviously unacceptable
alternatives, but it should be used with care. Screening can easily
oversimplify reality. Nominal scales assume homogeneity within cate-
gories and step-function differences between categories. Important
differences, however, could be hidden within categories. Moreover,
statistical uncertainties that surround environmental analysis and
possibilities of mitigating impacts by.altering project designs can
make the distinction between screened and unscreened alternatives
dubious. Figure 6 demonstrates the problems of oversimplification
more fully.
In general, it is best to remove only those alternatives domi-
nated by other alternatives unless there is sufficient reason to act
otherwise. Screening should not be used as a presentation device when
the unscreened alternatives will not be further analyzed. Such screen-
ing unnecessarily simplifies the alternatives presented to the decision
maker and to the public.
Weighting
Amalgamation of several variables into a composite.dimension of
concern is a common EIS presentation technique. Amalgamation
!""* requires judgments about (he relative weight (or significance) of each
;_, variable's contribution to the dimension of concern. Weights are not
o necessarily quantitative; ordinal comments such as "variable A is the
£ most important factor to consider in evaluating the alternatives" also
weight the significance of impacts. However, weights cannot be used
in amalgamation unless they are quantitative since amalgamation
requires the mathematical manipulation of data. In like manner, the
impact factors being weighted must also be quantitative (that is,
interval or ratio scaled).
The most commonly developed evaluation systems are based on
weighting-summation models. These models take the general form of
U(F) = S Wjf.
i'=l
where
U(F) = desirability or utility, either along a composite
dimension of concern (such as water quality) or along
an overall index of environmental quality,
w. = the i'h weight, and
f( = the ilh impact factor.
Because the EIA process rarely produces ratio scaled data, several
restrictions apply to the weighting-summation model. Interval scaled
variables cannot be multiplied by a second variable. Su.' 'dupli-
cations are unreliable since by moving the arbitrary zero point of the
interval scale, the rank of alternatives can be changed. Models of
interaction and nonlinearities require multiplication of two variables
and are therefore invalid for interval scaled data. Ecological and
preference interaction models cannot be incorporated, nor can non-
linear risk aversion models. Since environmental preferences are fre-
quently the product of interacting factors, and decison makers are
rarely risk neutral, the linearity assumption is usually invalid.
Along the same line of reasoning, the weights must always be
ratio scaled. Weights are multiplied by variable impact scores and are
unreliable if scaled with an arbitrary zero point. Yet few methods for
determining significance are careful about setting the zero point.
Nonarbitrary zero points of desirability are created by answering the
question: "Is the ratio of points X and Y a correct indicator of the ratio
of desirability of those two factors?" More concretely, "Do I really
prefer a factor scored at four twice as much as another factor (or
alternative) scored at two?"
Despite the logical difficulties associated with the weighting
summation model, methods based on this model are often used in
amalgamation. The weighting of impacts usually proceeds as a var-
iant of the process shown. The magnitude of variables is standardized,
the significance of variables is weighted, the two are multiplied, and
all products are added to produce a composite index. The resulting
index is not an impact magnitude; it has no independent value and can
only be used tocompaic tiifferent alternatives similarly indexed. Abso-
lute differences between alternatives are lost in the index.
This reduction of absolute data to a relative index may not help
decision makers who must later incorporate nonenvironmental fac-
tors into their decisions. Nonenvironmental data will not be similarly
indexed, and cannot be easily compared. Tradeoffs once incorporated
into a weighted-summation analysis may be difficult to trace. Neither
decision makers nor the public may be aware of the consequences of
particular weights. Furthermore, significance, as a measure of prefer-
ence, can only be determined from the viewpoint of a particular class
of people. In the absence of social theories for analytically combining
different viewpoints, amalgamation across groups is not possible.
Amalgamation across viewpoints is a political problem. Therefore, to
amalgamate only into dimensions of concern (such as air or water
quality) is generally preferable. Where differences of preference exist
within a dimension of concern, an analysis of the sensitivity of the
index to different assumptions should be provided.
There are a number of methods for selecting weights, some
more theoretically valid than others. Ranking and rating are the least
precise of these methods; decision analysis is among the most pu •• isc.
The methods fall into two categories: client explicated methods thai
query various groups about what they value, and observer derived
methods that use multiple regressions of observed behavior to calcu-
late weights. Hobbs and Voelker provide an excellent review of these
weighting schemes."
-------
ME
IP l
THE JACKSON WASTEWATER TREATMENTIIPLANT
REVISITED 8 i ! ! : ; ,[
The environmental analysis who produced the Jackson i EIS ~±
appioac heel lire problem of presentation with care. Most importantly, ^
they wrote a clear, concise draft ElSof two hundred pages. But the EPA -^
pioject manager [ell thai an explicit comparison of the alternatives ^*: !
was ncctlcd to convince the EPA Regional Administrator to reject the || •
town's proposal.19 The evaluation matrix and rating system shown in t
Figures 7a and 7b weie therefore included in the draft EIS. The matrix i* i
is both a professional judgment about potential impacts and a politi- :
cally motivated summary statement about preferred alternatives. The -
draft EIS was designed to assist EPA in the partisan debate between
Jackson and Teton County. The evaluation matrix, while a creative"
aiienipt to deal with the problem of amalgamation, underlines the
difficulties of this operation. Before moving to the next section, take a
few minutes to examine the matrix in Figure 7a. Can you see what the
difficulties ate?
Problems with the EIA Matrix ~.
. Pctliaps as you examined (he matrix yon noticed that mathematical
i operations are used incorrectly. The rating system and the weightsare--
^ treated as if they are interval scales. The mathematical operations of;,
a addition and multiplication are employed. However, scales that
J assign variables into minor, significant, or major impact classes are
ordinal, not interval. The addition or multiplication of ordinal data is
misleading. A single impact that results in major long-term and
extensive adverse damage is likely to be more significant than five*;: s
minor adverse impacts over limited areas. Yet both will yield ratings of
five when added.
Of equal importance, the matrix is domirrated by EPA's oppo-w- ,
sition to growth iir rural South Park. The lowest scores were invar*r ;
iably given to options that operred the most land to development.,
Jackson's proposal received the lowest scores becaue the Elk Feed-;!
ground sue would induce the most growth. The impacts of urbaniza-Su
lion are repeatedly incorporated into the matrix as separate impact
areas; induced development cost, loss of agricultural productivity.1 i
regulatory -'legal, aesthetic values, adherence to the planning process,(
giowth inducement, and growth regulation are all alternative con-\
cc-pis lot the same urbanization effects. These seven impact areas-
ace ouni foi one-thiid of the impact variables and approximated two-
thirds of the points scored negatively by the proposal. By repeatedly,,
incorporating these variables and scoring them as they did, the EPA*
analysis were showing theii clear displeasure with the possible urbani-s
zaiion of Smith Park. The tov. n council of Jackson, on tl. ' i hand.E:
fell ih:>' a desirable South Paik environment was an urban environ-
men ^fe. illy this conflict of values is buried in the EIS evaluation
ta i-
The terrain of South Park and the Elk Feedground is
open, lint rangeland. In the early 1970s, (be county i
government sought to preserve the agricultural and
wildlife character of the area, while the town council •.'•
favored its development.
Aftermath of the Jackson Draft EIS
In July 1977, three months after the EIS draft was released, Jackson's
town council announced its approval of a new South Park site for the
wastewater treatment plant—on private lands immediately north of
the Elk Feedground and the former site. The EPA matrix (see South - :
Park Road option shown in Fig. 7a) shows this site to be the second to .;
worst alternative. The council majority gave little consideration to * •-
alternatives suggested in the Draft EIS. The council wanted the plant
constructed as far south as possible to serve future development in -
South Park by gravity flow interceptor lines.20 1«
Four options, which according to the Draft EIS were the ,,
second, third, fourth, and fifth best alternatives, were eliminated from
further consideration. The expansion of the existing plant alternative" -
(scoring best in the EIS and preferred by EPA and the county) and the!
southern South Park alternative (scoring sixth in the EIS and preferred *
by the town council) received continued attention. During the summer'
of 1977, EPA Region VIII staff became increasingly aware of Jackson's;
commitment to urbanization. Early efforts by EPA project officer Wes' :
Wilson failed to open discussion; town officials considered Wilson
biased toward the county's preservationist position. i ,
EPA's role in the dispute changed markedly with the' ember) ;1
1977 appointment of Alan Merson as Regional Adminisii*k EPA; >
-------
Figure 7a. A simplified version of the Jackson EIS Environmental
Evaluation Matrix. The original matrix included
evaluations of four alternatives not shown in this figure.
(U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region VIII,
Draft Environmental Impact Statement, Jackson
Wastewater Treatment System, Town of Jackson,
Wyoming, Denver, Colorado, May 1977.)
o
V~4
U)
NATURAL ENVIRONMENTAL VALUES
Alt Quality (localised)
Wilcr Quality (wtfict)
Water Quilliy (pound)
Wildlife
Fiiheiiei
Ve|ttillon and Ihbltil
Raie ind Endangered Speclea
Nilunl lluudi
TOTAL
ECONOMIC VALUES
Loci) Capital Colt
OfcMCoil
Induced Development Coill
Individual Coit
_ jjQ^i of A|. f rodjiclivUy ^
TOTAL
SOCIAL-CULTURAL VALUES
Iliilork-Archaeologieal
Public Acceptability
Regulatory /Legal
Cultural Fallem (life ilyle)
Aeilhetiea Valuei
Recreational Valuea
LAND USE PLANNING VALUES
Adherence lo the Planning Proc.
Growth Inducement
Grow ill Ki'tulation
TOTAL
y+A
•13
-22
/-*/*
/*A
•2
•A
-*
-18
10
-12
32
<*A Y
-------
i
*= * =- ---=
:--L*-- ' ;;!: ' !,"-:' ! :"Ji r =•!. .!!M ,,:.
Finally, Merson also believed that South. Padc would develop rapidly,,
the county plan notwithstanding, Merson, feared that Flat Creek's! '
water quality would suffer if South Park development was served byf Ilji I
package plants and individual septic systems. , i,T!
Recognizing that serious differences still remained between the ":.;
two panics, Mcison in mid-December 1977 hired Andrew Briscoe, of' \?
the planning firm Briscoe, Murray, Muphis, and Lamong (BMML), to ;
negotiate a settlement between the town and county. On April 13, 4:1) i
1978. an agreement to accept the South Park site was reached. The
agreement specified plant size and design capacity, empowered.the ill;
county lo limit annual out-of-town sewer hookups as part of its ;
comprehensive plan, and required the town to base out-of-town hook- "s
up policies on a specified set of customer classes, and sewage hookup '.
fees on a "full-cost pricing" system—both policies subject to EPA ! -
review and approval. ;;, ;
Like so many projects, agreement on the Jackson wastewater''J(
treatment plant required negotiations and compromise. The draft EIS :;i'
provided much of the analysis on which negotiations were eventually:..;;
based, but it did not clarify the issues nor incorporate different view-
points. The impacts predicted in the EIS were amalgamated based
only on the EPA analysts' judgments of significance. EPA's judgment
was too narrow. It did not allow for uncertainty (such as whether
* South Park would develop with or without the proposed waslewater':-.
1 treatment plant) nor for alternative values (such as the town council's
> urbanization preference), and it employed invalid operations toU
* manipulate data (such as addition of ordinal data). The EPA analysts,
working hard to produce a concise EIS, fell into several of the traps
common to most EISs that use amalgamation. These traps, while
common, are not inevitable. The next section will review the discus- ;
sion on amalgamation, and suggest ways of using it to produce more
accurate and informative EISs.
SUGGESTIONS ON THE USE OF AMALGAMATION
As the Jackson case makes quite clear, alternatives are eventually"
chosen not by optimization but by the interaction of interest groups.^
Confrontation, negotiation, mediation, and compromise are the final:
arbiters.21 For a political decision, well-structured information on a
range of alternatives is needed. Since amalgamation simplifies details
as well as interprets the data, amalgamate only to the extent that it
facilitates comparisons of policy options. Selective use of amalgam-;
ation to highlight significant problem areas and tradeoffs among
interest groups is an important aid to decision makers. Indescriminate
use of amalgamation, however, obscures problems and hides tradeoffs.'
Amalgamation implicitly involves value judgments. Whenever
impacts are rescaled and r<—'bined into more conrisc ''""fusions of
concern, describe the original impacts in the units in which they are :
""*". I in a second summary chart. An attempt at displaying
' (o facilitate comparisons is shown in Figure 8. Also, describe!
*-
i
•o-SifSsg-g
-
-------
the ;i for amalgamation. When individual impacts are displayed
in (a ho la r form, present (he significance of each individual impact in
die same table. A column for comments may be usefully employed to
indicate the importance of individual impacts.
Give special care to the summary of nominal (named or catego-
rized) data. Such data cannot be amalgamated (since they are not
quantified), and thus are easily forgotten. Make certain that attention
is focused on unquantified values in summary tables.
Avoid amalgamating interval or ordinal data into nominal
scales. If criteria are established to judge the significance of an impact,
indicate (he extent to which the criteria are exceeded. Simple yes/no
scoring is of limited use to decision makers.
Express ordinal scales alphabetically (A, B), verbally ("signifi-
cant," "slight"), or symbolically (I , ?). Avoid the use of numerical
scales because they create the temptation to add the rankings across
categories. Since ordinal scales do not account for the absolute magni-
tude of individual impacts, any mathematical manipulation is inap-
propriate. Frequency distributions are the most common method of
amalgamation.
Ordinal scales that rale the relative difference between impacts,
rather than simply ranking their order of importance, are generally
preferable. More information Is contained in the statement "Alterna-
live A has a serious effect on water quality while Alternative B has no
effect" than in the statement "Alternative A has a more serious effect
on water quality than does Alternative B."
When using interval data, take care to differentiate between
magnitude and significance. The magnitude of a specific impact may
be a poor measure of community preference or ecological vulnerabil-
ity. Amalgamation of interval data can be accomplished if the relative
significance of several variables can be weighted. Since weighting
implicitly involves value judgments, explicitly identify the process of
arriving at weights. The views of affected parties are important sources
of value identification. When expert judgment is employed, identify
the expert along with his or her affiliation and the basis for making the
evaluation. Avoid the temptation to over-amalgamate.
Clearly indicate the degree of uncertainty in professional or
community judgments in the body of the EIS and in the summary.
Highlight uncertainty, interactive effects, or lack of data and their
possible repercussions. Show differences in impacts over time when
impacts accumulate,' when projects are staged, or when environmental
conditions change. Demonstrate the implications of giving greater
weight to one type of impact over another. Also show the ?'-"<-itl\ ity of
the analysis to changes in the assumptions.
Finally, careful analysis is a necessary but not sufficient crite-
rion for writing an effective EIS. There are a vast number of methods
for determining significance and for amalgamating. The effec-
tive are those that not only use techniques that are valid and reliable,
-------
SHE
K
p*
»
I
1
«
Ise;-
i i
i «i
" r
IBs?
1
,3, For a discussion of (he key analytic problems found in the EIA
. . ^process, see Craig Milter and Michael Bever, Assessing the
; ^Environmental Impacts of Resource Recovery Facilities
a (Laboratory of Architecture and Planning, MIT, Cambridge,
•• I 1978), and Lawrence Bacow, 'The Technical and Judgmental
; j Dimensions of Impact Assessment," Environmental Impact
^Assessment Review I, no. 2 (June 1980): 109-24.
• 4. i Wes Wilson, personal communication, 1980.
j 5. j Institute of Ecology, Optimum Pathway Matrix Analysis
, Approach to the Environmental Decision Making Process
* (Institute of Ecology, University of Georgia, Athens, Georgia,
J 1971). Eugene Odum et al,, "Totality Indices for Evaluating
; Environmental Impact" in Environmental Impact
i ; Assessment, ed. Marian Blisset (Lyndon B. Johnson School of
1 5 Public Affairs, University of Texas, Austin, Texas, 1976).
1 6. " Charles Solomon, el al., Water Resources Assessment
Methodology (WRAM): Impact Assessment and Alternative
; Evaluation" (U.S. Army Engineer Waterways Experiment
i Station, Vicksburg, Mississippi, February 1977).
7. Norman Dee et al., "An Environmental Evaluation System for
" ; Water Resource Planning," Water Resources Research 9, no. 3
: (June 1973): 523-35.
' 8. i More detailed discussions of specific amalgamative methods
'- are available to the interested reader. A recent study by the
i author produced an inventory of thirty different methods for
- amalgamating impacts and determining their significance.
* The best known include Handle's Environmental Evaluation
, System, Rolling's Adaptive Environmental Assessment, the
Institute of Ecology's Optimum Pathway Matrix Analysis,
I Leopold's Matrix Procedure, Hill's Goal-Achievement Matrix,
i McHarg's Overlay Technique, and the U.S. Army Corps'
* Water i Resource Assessment Methodology. Three good
* discussions of these and other methods can be found in (a)
Brian Clark, Ronald Bisset, and Peter Wathern,—
i Environmental Impact Assessment: A Bibliography with
Abstracts (New York: Bowker, 1980); (b) Donald McAllister,
* Evaluation in Environmental Planning (Cambridge, Mass.:
§ The MIT Press, 1980); and (c) Robert Nicholsand Eric Hyman,
A Review and Analysis of Fifteen Methodologies for
-. Environmental Assessment (Center for Urban ai<-' Regional
Studies, University of North Carolina, Chappl Hill, February
1980). Anexcellont'iutmorespecializeddiscussinrMsofferedby
B. Hobbs and A. Voelker, "Analytical Multiobjective Decision
Making Techniques and Power Plant Siting: A . \ and
Antique," Draft ORNL-5288 (Oak Ridge National
•oratory, Oak Ridge, Tennessee, 1977).
i
f
IE" "I
fit 1 Bii
(HP
9, See Now L j ; !
10^ The Economic Evaluation for theU3L Bristol Area Transport
Study makes paired! comparisons! across seven dimensions of
concern, then identifies the preferred alternative by examining
the pairs. This ranking of all alternatives based on the ranking
of many pairs is invalid unless one alternative clearly
'. dominates in all dimensions. Otherwise, the dimensions must
i i be weighted, and weighting cannot be incorporated into
ordinal data. See Jamieson MacKay and Partners, Strategic
Environmental Evaluation Technique—Bristol Study, Part 1,
Application of the Methods. (United Kingdom, 1975.)
11. The McHarg Overlay Technique is based on an overlay of map
transparencies, each map dealing with specific environmental
and land-use characteristics. Each of these characteristics is
shaded differently to represent three degrees of "compatibility
with the highway." By using overlain maps, one of which is the
proposed route, a comprehensive picture showing the spatial
distribution and intensity of impacts can be obtained.
However, this method requires that all data be converted to
ordinal scales. Considerable information contained in interval
or ratio scales can be lost by such a conversion. Once all
measures are scaled ordinally, the tonal variation with respect
to each environmental parameter and the comparative color
densities for the scales of the different transparencies must be
determined. The former is an implicit judgment about scaling
the magnitude of individual environmental parameters, the
latter about weighting the relative importance of different
environmental parameters. Since these judgments are not
explicit, they lend to be subjective. Moreover, the process of
overlaying the maps is equivalent to visually adding the
i parameters. As this article points out, ordinally scaled para-
meters cannot be added or weighted because the scales
associated with the various parameters are in different units of
measure. Additions and weightings are valid only if a siandard
-— poinl of reference and fixed intervals are set for the full range of
parameters, and this is not possible with ordinal data. See lair
McHarg, "A Comprehensive Highway Route-selection
Method," Highway Research Record, No. 246 (Highway
Research Board, Washington, D.C., 1968), and McHarg,
D«r"gn with Nature (Garden City, N.Y.: Natural History Press.
1969.)
12. A third alternative can be noted, but is of limited use in
environmental impact assessment. Data can be standardized
using standard devialions when a large number of alternatives
are being compared. For each dimension, ihe difference
between the observed measurement of that characi«~!
-------
standard deviation. The resulting "z-score" can be added to z-
scores of other characteristics because each characteristic is
expressed in terms of standard deviation from a mean. Z-scores
can be amalgamated. Social impacts are frequently derived in
this fashion. The means and standard deviation methods do
not directly indicate goodness, but provide instead a
statistically stable tool to meas-ure differences by internal
comparisons. Since environmental impact statements usually
assess a limited range of alternatives, internal comparisons are
not likely to be helpful.
13. Standardized proportions are unreliable. The inclusion of a
new alternative can change the rank order of two previous
alternatives. Consider a simple water quality index based on
toxic ammonia and total phosphorus. We compare two
alternatives with ammonia values of .007 and .012 and
phosphorus values of .01 and .005 milligrams per liter
respectively. We divide by the largest values (.012 and .01) and
add. Alternative I equals (.007/.OI2) M (.OI/.01) M 1.6.
Similarly, alternative 2 equals 1.5. Now, if we include a new
alternative with an ammonia value of .02 and a phosphorus
value of .05, the new largest values are .02 and .05, and the
standardized proportions for alternatives I, 2, and 3 are 0.55,
0.7, and 2.0 respectively. Alternative I and 2 have changed
order.
14. Lyndon Babcockand Niren Nagda, "Indicesof Air Quality" in
Indicators of Environmental Qualify, ed. W. Thomas (New
York: Plenum Press, 1972).
15. Dee. See Note 7.
16. Bruce Ackerman et al., The Uncertain Search for
Environmental Quality (New York: The Free Press, 1974).
17. 'N. Georgescu-Rogen, "Choice, Expectations, and Measur-
ability," Quarterly Journal of Economics 64 (1954).
18. Hobbs and Voelker. See Note 8.
19. See Note 2, especially personal cotnmuication with Wilson.
20. Steven Hill, "201 Grants for Municipal Wastewaier
Treatments," p. 24. See Note 2.
21. Lawrence Susskind et al., Resolving Environmental Disputes:
Approaches to Intervention, Negotiation, -•>.' Conflict
Resolution (Laboratory of Architecture and Planning, MIT,
Cambridge 1978).
-------
,1 ,1
'"Ill
"'("Bil
I liN
i i in i
n i n i n i mi inn in 111 n i i mini in n i n n
-------
GEOGRAPHIC INFORMATION SYSTEMS
Jensen, J., and G. Gault. 1992. Electrifying the impact assessment process. The
Environmental Professional 14: 50-59.
1.5.11-1
-------
!|F|-
a, .t:
•
li! |f 1|!
tmt
If
H;
!;::!:!
lei i! «^ :«
-------
Geographical Information Systems (GISs) are essentially
computerized graphical overlay systems (Attachment 4.E).
Environmental features are mapped, and the mapping digitized and
stored in a GIS data base. The mapped features can be combined
to produce computer-generated displays of one or more
environmental features in a specified geographical area. If GIS
mapping is conducted systematically, information acquired on
specific projects can be combined, and the GIS data base becomes
more detailed over time. Overlay mapping is an excellent tool for
showing spatial dimensions of impacts, but is less successful in
dealing with other impact characteristics such as probability, time,
and reversibility.
The field of environmental modeling to identify and evaluate
environmental impacts has developed very rapidly due essentially
to two factors (Jorgensen 1991; Chapter 4.3):
The development of computer technology, which has made
possible the handling of complex mathematical systems.
A better understanding of pollution problems, including the
application of ecology in this context.
Modeling is the most advanced EA method available but it depends
on experts to know which components and processes should be
included; it can be costly; and it is only as good as the available
data and the assumptions that bound the analysis. The general
components of modeling and types of models are discussed by
Jdrgensen (1991). Bregman and Mackenthun (1992) provide
information on computer models for surface water quality and air
quality. Attachment 4.C describes models that are useful for
predicting the fate of chemicals in multimedia systems (i. e.,
fugacity models) as well as remediation, aquatic, soil, food chain,
atmospheric, and spill models.
Luhar and Khanna (1988; Attachment 4.B) present a framework
for computer-aided rapid EA that covers six environmental
components (air, water, land, noise, biological, and socio-
economics) and the costs of mitigation measures. The authors
recognize that data availability in developing countries often is
limited; thus, their models have minimal data requirements. Some
computer-aided impact identification and data summarization
systems are discussed by Strand et al. (1983), Riggins (1980-81),
and Lein (1993).
1.5.7-7
-------
"!(''" ilHiii i . 1 ;, !. iiiiliil ••iliiBllil'
PROFESSIONAL REPORTS
i I1!!1?;1!! Pt
ELECrrRIFYING THE IMPACT ASSESSMENT PROCESS
James Jensen
Gregory Gault
Dames and Moore
various
selection of the environmentally-preferred routing alternative.
a credible resource pluming and decision process.
II ; ;; B^TRODUCTION
K» 1970, the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA)
.d the fanplernenting regulations (40 CFR1500-1508) have
providedthemandateforenviroiunentalconsideiationsinthe
federal decision-making process. Environmental Impact
jnjijfc" Sutcments (EISs) and Environmental Assessments (EAs)
• '•*»i <<('IE? are prepared routinely by federal agencies to evaluate alter-
natives to a proposed action, to document the environmental
consequences, and to show clearly what rationale was used to
determine the preferred alternative among proposed actions,
alternatives to a proposed action, or no action.
In its 20-year history, j$j~p"^ j^ matured into a more sophis-
ticated planning mandate and decision-making tool for fed-
eral agencies due to several factors: (l)litigation interpreting
the intent of NEPA and Council of Environmental Quality
(CEQ) regulations, (2)higher environmental standards of the
federal agencies, (3)highcr public environmental conscious-
ness, (4)more significant' technology brought to bear in pro-
viding decisionmakers with more complete information.
•• i :i li: -1
James Jensen isaUndscapeSrutectanSenvirbnrhentalplanner. As
an associate with Dames and Moore, 1750 Front St., Suite 100,
BoSe, 5> 83702, Mr. Jensen has managed a wide variety of
multi disciplinary environmental planning and recreation studies in
the western U.S.
Gregory Gault is a private consultant with the firm of Dames and
wore], .where he is responsible for guiding the design and coordi-
^tting trie hnpiemcnianon of environmental resource studies.
Thbpaperwas presented at the 1991 annual meeting of the National
Association of Environmental Professionals.
This paper illustrates with a case study the utility of a
geographic information system (GIS) to assess the potential
environmental impacts and to compare alternative routes for
a major regional transmission project for an EIS.
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
The Southwest Interne Project is a 500 kilovolt (kV) trans-
mission line proposed to originate from southern Idaho and
extend southward to the Las Vegas, Nevada, area. A second
portion of the project will extend from roughly t;ie midpoint
of the north-south segment (near Ely, Nevada) to Delta. Utah
(Figure 1). The total project length is about 1,140 kilometers
(700 miles). For over 25 years, the need for the project to
provide reliable power and regional power exchange has
been recognized by the utility companies in the western
United States and in the Congress (PL 88-552,1964).
The EIS is being prepared for the United States Department
of Interior (USDI) Bureau of Land Management, the federal
lead agency. Cooperating agencies include the United States
Department of Agriculture (USDA) Forest Service, USDI
National Park Service, the USDI Bureau of Reclamation, and
the USDI Bureau of Indian Affairs.
The project was conducted in two major phases:
Phase 1 - regional studies to identify alternative corridors
• Phase 2 - corridor studies for the EIS
The Phase 1 work involved an area of approximately 97.500
square kilometers (60,000 square miles) in southern Idaho,
: « :, n ;^^ tfffi£A«M^fi|3«OI^ Volutn. 14 pp. 50-59 1992.
• • ••»• 1.5.11-3
nlliiiill!!!1, ! Iliiliilil!1 Ilililliii1'1 i'l'"','!!!
I 0191 -5398/92 $3.00 + .00
Copyright © National Association of Environmental Protesstonals
-------
IMPACT ASSESSMENT
51
Figure 1. Regional Study Area
San
western Nevada, and eastern Utah (USDI, 1989b). The
purpose of the regional study was to identify alternative
corridors that would be considered "reasonable and feasible"
for routing transmission line alternatives (Figure 2).
GEOGRAPHIC INFORMATION SYSTEMS
DATABASE
A database was constructed using a GIS at 1:500,000 scale.
Secondary, or existing data, in the form of documents and
maps, were collected and input into the GIS system through
digitizing or through reading digital data from tapes. In
addition. United States Geological Survey (USGS) digital
elevation mapping and remotely-sensed dau. . .lulti-Spectral
Scanner imagery) complemented the environmental data-
base. Data were organized and arranged by distinct types,
forms, or categories into files or layers for use in modeling
and data reporting.
The remotely-sensed data used in the Phase 1 studies were
classified into land cover types (e.g., agricultural lands,
vegetation types, etc.) using an image processing system
(Howald, 1990). Once compiled, the GIS database was used
to identify opportunities and constraints based on environ-
mental and engineering parameters that could affect trans-
mission line routing.
1.5.11-4
-------
Hi iifciiiil,, I-1!; :„.(
Figure 2. Alternatives for Detailed Studies
The Phase 1 regional study results were presented at a series
of public scoping meetings held during the beginning of the
Phase'^HS stulies'cySDl, 1989a). From over4,900 kilome-
ters (3000"rniles) of iliernative corridors identified during the
Phase I" studi«t~"a6qut 2j90p'^lalonieters'' (1800 miles) of
alternative corridors were carried forward into Phase 2 for
detailed study as "reasonable and feasible" transmission line
routing jQ^jj^jjyg^
The regional database then was enhanced for the corridor
studies (Phase 2) by retaining the secondary data from the
lasclstudicsandmodifyingthcsedaiatoaccommcxiatethe
-; "ii^^^ll^^;e'-l~lu|^i|—g^gp|^e~2 studies. Refined Phase
1 data were supplemented with additional detailed data from
': E: iespt^TB3OBii^^.qc^|ecttd and mapped at 1:100,000
scale. Detailed data were mapped within a six-mile wide
JENSEN and GAULT
corridor centered on the assumed centerline of alternative
routing corridors. The individual GIS data layers mapped for
the corridor studies are listed in Table 1.
IMPACT ASSESSMENT MODELS
The purposes of assessing the potential environmental im-
pacts of placing a transmission line along each of the alterna-
tive routes are to document environmental effects and to
determine the alternative route that has the lowest overall
impact (i.e., environmentally-preferred alternative), for the
decision-making agency. The GIS was used as a tool to
estimate and documentpotential environmental consequences
and to provide summary information to the public and the
agencies to assist the decision-making process. The key word
forusing advanced technology in the NEPA process is "tool."
Because CIS lacks the ability to understand complex, inter-
related environmental systems or issues, it should not replace
traditional methodologies used on many linear projects to
assess impacts and compare alternative routes, which gener-
ally are considered by professionals and public and agency
reviewers as credible and defensible. Conversely, it should
be used to facilitate consistency in applying impact assess-
ment methodologies and documenting then- results hi a thor-
ough and defensible EIS document
To determine potential impacts, it is necessary to determine
what types of impacts are expected. For example, most
resource impacts from a transmission line project on public
lands in the western United States can be determined by
asking three questions: (1 )How will ground disturbance from
construction and operation affect sensitive resource features
or values? (2)How will increased access from new roads
constructed hi remote areas affect sensitive resource features
orvaluestypicallyprotectedbytheu-remoteness?and(3)What
director indirect effects will the presence of transmission line
structures have?
Modelling the Affected Environment
To answer these predictive questions, it was nect jy to
develop several "pre-impact assessment" models to establish
the magnitude of change that would occur hi the environment
from the introduction of a SOOkV transmission line. Most
modelling of potential impacts was done using two bas: ure-
impact assessment models: (l)the ground disturbance model
and (2)the public accessibility model.
Based on five slope categories that considered the estimated
mileage of road needed to access tower construction sites and
the estimated size of construction areas at tower sites, a set of
assumptions called accesslevels was developed. These ac-
cess levels provided the basis with which the pre-impact
assessment models measured the potential change hi the
environment, per mile of transmission line constructed.
By using components of the GIS database (Table 1), other
capabilities of the GIS, and the two basic pre-impact assess-
1.5.11-5
illiiail ..... jfViK^^^ Illlililli ....... ! ........ 'KM:1.! ..... ,!;U ..... iiiiiW^ ..... IliWiHi! ...... I -all1] ..... .' ....... Hi." ....... Ill if fill ..... If ..... •Illlljl ..... JIM! ..........
-------
IMPACT ASSESSMENT
53
Data Layer
Table 1. CIS Inventory Data Base
Comments
Residences and Other Structures
Transportation and Access
Parks. Recreation, and Preservation
Land Uses
Miltary Air Space
Range Allotments
Wildlife
Botany
Scenic Quality Classes
Visual Resource Management Classes
Soils
Water Resources
Cultural Resources
Land Cover
Terrain/Elevation
Locations interpreted from satellite imagery
Existing highways and paved and unpaved roads
Wilderness areas, national parks, state parks, other public and
private recreation facilities
Transmission lines, pipelines, mines, wells, corrals, and other surface uses
Military flight research and training areas (to 100 feet above the ground)
Public land areas used for livestock grazing
Threatened and endangered species, other sensitive species, and sensitive habitat
Rare and sensitive plants and their habitat
Federal agency classification of landscape aesthetics
Federal agency designations for the management of the visual landscape
.Erosion and structural load characteristics. Prime/Unique farmland designations
Rivers, perennial and intermittent streams, other waterbodies, floodplain
areas, high water table
Known archaeological/historical sites
Classified from Thematic Mapper (TM) data
USGS Digital Terrain data and mapping
ment models mentioned above, several other prc-impact
assessment models were developed:
• visibility from sensitive viewpoints (e.g., residences,
parks, recreation areas, scenic overlooks)
• visual contrast from vegetation removal, changes in
landform from road construction, and presence or ab-
sence of structures such as buildings or other transmis-
sion lines
• cultural resources predictive model (USDI, 1990)
• buffers for critical habitats for some sensitive plant and
wildlife species locations (e.g., distance or zone around
the nesting site of a threatened or endangered raptor
species, which generally is considered necessary to
protect the nest)
• slope categories
The data and mapping that resulted from the pie-impact
assessment models were used as the basis for determining the
specific locations and severity of resource impacts. These
pre-impact assessment models are described in more detail
below.
Ground Disturbance Model - The project wil' -itilize existing
unpaved roads and will require the construct, t of some new
access roads for construction crews to place lower footings,
erect towers, and string the conductors. Where no access
roads exist, new roads will have to be built Also, some
existing roads will need to be upgraded to support construc-
tion equipment and vehicles. In either case, some ground
disturbing activities will be necessary to construct and oper-
ate the transmission line.
The ground disturbance model combined the CIS database
layers of land cover, slope categories, and transportation
listed in Table 1 toquantify and map the area of potential land
disturbance into five levels of magnitude. The level of distur-
1.5.11-6
-------
JENSEN and GAULT
-------
IMPACT ASSESSMENT
bance varies depending upon the presence or absence of
existing roads, the terrain that might require grading, and the
circuitous routing for grade limitations. Figure 3 illustrates
the ground disturbance levels.
Public Accessibility Model -This model estimated the degree
of remoteness of areas along each of the transmission line
routing alternatives. The primary assumption of developing
this model was that impacts could occur to certain resources
if new access roads are constructed and maintained in largely
remote areas. Legal or illegal hunting could endanger sensi-
tive plant or wildlife species and increase pressure on game
species. Cultural resources (e.g., early-man sites) may be
more susceptible to vandalism or damage due to the cumula-
tive impacts (e.g., repeated damage from vehicle tire tracks)
by public land users (USDI, 1990).
The public accessibility model utilized the transportation
layer of the CIS database in conjunction with the results of the
ground disturbance model. The model estimated the increase
in the area accessible by roads in remote areas expressed in
terms of five percentage values. Several of the impact
assessments models used these values to predict the potential
impacts associated with increased access. Figure 4 illustrates
the five levels of access.
Visibility - This model was constructed using the digital
terrain data and selected land uses (e.g., residences, parks,
scenic overlooks, highways) that were considered to be
sensitive viewpoints. Mapping of viewsheds was generated
through a CIS operation mat "looks out" from these view-
points over the digitally-modeled terrain of the project study
area. The resulting maps represented visibility as distance
thresholds of visual perception (0-500 meters, 500-1500
meters). These maps later were utilized by CIS impact
models to determine the potential visual impacts of the
construction and operation of the transmission line.
Visual Contrast • Visual contrast is a measure of visible
change in the landscape (USDI, 1986). The visual contrast
model was developed by combining the results of two other
pre-impact assessment models. The first of these models was
created to predict the contrasts that would result from vegeta-
tion removal and changes in landform. This model used the
landcover and terrain database layers in conjunction with the
ground disturbance model to determine the contrast from
ground disturbing activities. The second model, structure
contrast, was created from elements of the land use database
layer (e.g., existing structures, transmission lines) and the
proposed project description (e.g., types of new towers pro-
posed). Mapping of visual contrast represented the level of
change in the characteristic landscape. Visual impacts were
determined through an evaluation of how visual contrasts
were perceived from sensitive viewpoints.
Cultural Resources Predictive Model - The locations of most
cultural resources (prehistoric, ethnohistoric. and historic) in
the western U.S. are not known or recorded, except where
specific surveys have been conducted. To assist in determin-
ing where sensitive cultural resources likely may be found, a
cultural resources predictive model was developed. ~~
model includes the landcover, terrain, and water reso
database layers. The probability of findin:; culturally-seiu«-
tive sites was estimated by a model that evaluated several key
environmental factors, such as proximity to water, presence
of specific vegetation types, and elevation.
Sensitive Habitats - The CIS buffering capability was applied
to establish zones of potentially sensitive habitats associated
with known habitat locations. For example, a buffer of 812
meters (1/2 mile) was used around known locations of sage
grouse leks or spring strutting grounds to include potential
nesting habitat. Similarly, ferruginous hawknests, bald eagle
nests, and other sensitive wildlife habitat or botanical loca-
tions were buffered to establish a zone where potential
disturbances from the construction or operation of the trans-
mission line could be assessed.
5/ope-Fiveslope categories were mapped usingthe 1250,000
scale USGS digital elevation mapping. The slope categories
were selected based upon degree of soil erosion potential,
construction difficulty, and other environmental and con-
struction parameters. These categories were important in the
development of the access levels for use in the ground
disturbance and public accessibility pre-impact assessment
models, described previously.
Combining the results of the pre-impact assessment nv
with the selected layers of the CIS database, the L
assessment models performed three functions: (l)estim
-------
[•• is
IN, «
»*
• ii
:• ;;i
^:!
fc^::
Figure 4. Pubic Accessibility Model
PUBLIC ACCESSIBILITY
PERCENT CHANGE
IN ROAD DENSITY
LINK DESIGNATION
8 Miles
Southwest Intertie
Project
O)
m
at
a
O
-------
IMPACT ASSESSMENT
would be disturbed when crossed by the assumed centerlinc
of arouting alternative. If the ground disturbance is expected
to be low, the potential to disturb sage grouse habitats would
be minimal. Minimal ground disturbance would be the case
if the alternative route parallels an existing road or similar
linear land-use feature.
Similarly, a series of matrices was applied by the impact
assessment models that assigned impacts to specific resource
features and values (e.g., cultural, wildlife, and botanical
resources) based on the level of potential increase in public
access. For example, ferruginous hawks are less likely to be
disturbed during sensitive nesting periods or shot illegally if
they are in inaccessible or remote areas. Where areas of
significant change in accessibility coincide with sensitive
resource features or values, potentially significant effects are
likely to result.
The next step in the process of determining and documenting
potential impacts was to recommend mitigation that wouldbe
effective in reducing initial impact levels. A standard set of
mitigation measures was developed for the project. Matrices
were used to apply mitigation measures to specific locations
and to specific types of impacts. For example, one might
expect impacts upon big game species, such as pronghom
antelope or elk, during their sensitive breeding or fawning
periods, but these impacts can be eliminated effectively by
applying the mitigation measure of avoiding construction
during these sensitive periods.
57
The final step in the automated impact assessment process
was to determineresidual impacts, or those impacts expected
to remain following mitigation. A matrix again was appbfi
to determine the level of residual impact. The spec
location and quantified severity of residual impacts w.
documented in printed tabular reports and illustrated in
impactmapsgeneratedbytheGIS-Boththemapsandtabular
reports document impacts on an increment of approximately
162 meters (0.1 mile) along each of the 2,900 kilometers
(1800 miles)of alternative routes. An example of the tabular
report for ground disturbance impacts related to wildlife
resources is illustrated in Table 2.
Preliminary maps were generated for each step in the impact
assessment process, initial impacts, mitigation, and residual
impacts, to verify modeling operations and to assure data
integrity. A total of 22 impact assessment models was
developed to evaluate the ground disturbance, public access,
or visual effects of a transmission line on the resources in the
layers of the GIS database (Table 1). The results of each of
the individual impact assessments were compiled to summa-
rize impacts and determine an environmentally-preferred
alternative.
SELECTING AN ENVIRONMENTALLY-
PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE
Because of the inherent difficulty in comprehending the
voluminous data generated by the twenty-two individual
impact assessments, the data from the tabular impact reports
Table 2. Ground Disturbance Impacts to Wildlife
Initial Mitigation Residual
Resource Theme Impact Measures Impact Comments
Mile Post
From To Length
Route Link 167
0.0 0.1 0.1
crosses within
1/4 mile of lek
crosses edg- of 1/2 mile
habitat buf:
crosses with::.
1/4 mile of lei.
crosses edge o: 1/2 mile
habitat buffer
crosses edge of 1/2 mile
habitat buffer
1.5.11-10
-------
JENSEN and GAULT
i ill I i
Hi ill!™* i ;['
Resource Discipline
Biological Resources
Cultural Resources
Earth Resources
Land Uses
Visual Resources
Table 3. Resource Discipline Impacts
Individual Impact Assessment
Ground Disturbance Public Accessibility
Wildlife
Botanical
Known Sites
Predictive Model
Soil Erosion
Water Resources
Parks. Recreation, and Preservation
Existing and Planned Land Uses
Agricultural Lands
Military Operating Areas
Views from Residences
Views from Sensitive Recreation Areas
Views from Sensitive Travel Routes
Scenic Quality Impacts
Wildlife
Botanical
Known Sites
Predictive Model
Table 4. Alternative Routes
B
16.8 16.8
202.7 206.9
118.8 963
98,7 115.5
40.9 453
16.8
199.9
117.2
97.8
40.1
Construction
16.8
211.4
103.9
105.1
42.9
Access Levels
16.8
187.8
96.7
98.8
43.7
Natural Environment
22.0 16.8 Agricultural lands
210.5 199.9 Existing access with spur roads
119.8 117.2 New access roads in flat (0-8%) terrain
933 97.8 New access roads in rolling (8-35%) ten ••
37.4 40.1 New access roads in steep (35-65%) ten
Wildlife
Ferruginous hawk nest buffers
Desert tortoise habitat
Sage grouse (leks or winter range)
Crucial big game habitat
Crucial nesting habitat
Sensitive fish species
Federally-listed orcandidate species
Other sensitive species
1.5.11-11
-------
IMPACT ASSESSMENT
59
and maps were collapsed into the five resource disciplines:
visual, biological, cultural, land use, and earth resources. The
process of collapsing the data involved GIS operations that
overlaid several residual impact maps from each resource to
create a single integrated map that represented the maximum
or worst-case impacts for that resource discipline. For
example, the higher biological impacts always took prece-
dence over he lower impacts in the same location. The
impact values of high, moderate, and low for each of the
twenty-two individual impact assessments were developed
using the same criteria. As an example, a high impact for
cultural resources was considered to have a parallel effect to
high impact to soils.
The collapsed biological resource impact map was derived
using the GIS from the four individual impact assessments
done for biology (Table 3). In addition, the GIS produced
summary reports of the resource discipline impacts for each
of the alternative routes. These summaries will be used in
selecting the environmentally-preferred alternative.
As a tool to assist the selection of preferred alternative routes
for each resource discipline (e.g., biological resources), the
GIS was queried to select the least impact route. An imped-
ance model was developed to identify the "path of least
resistance" for each resource discipline by adding up impacts
(e.g., impedance) along alternative route segments until it
arrived at its destination point. The results of the impedance
models were used to construct eleven alternative routes from
the numerous alternative corridor segments.
These alternative routes will be compared in the EIS. The
summarized alternative route comparison data, supplemented
by the results of the impedance models, will be used to select
an environmentally-preferred alternative route in the EIS.
Table 4 shows examples of construction disturbance ex-
pected and some of the critical wildlife resources that would
be crossed for seven of the alternative routes (A through G).
Similar summary data tables were produced for each of the
resource disciplines. The summary data are displayed in a
format to facilitate comparing the alternatives.
SUMMARY
The application of GIS technology has been instrumental in
the management of the voluminous data gathered for the
studies of this transmission line project. The development of
the capability to model the potential impacts associated •
the construction and operation of a transmission line p^
vided planners with the data needed for a strong siting
process, and provided decisionmakers with the best informa-
tion available to assist them in the selection of a preferred
alternative route for this project.
Environmental planners are charged with integrating the
activities of man into a fragile and sensitive environment.
The advanced technologies of GIS are available to manage
large databases and to perform comprehensive impact assess-
ments. The GIS is a tool that is gaining widespread accep-
tance and credibility with industry, environmental interests,
and land managers; it can be utilized effectively to perform
detailed analysis, as well as to provide the much-needed
consistency to environmental documentation. Coupled with
other advanced technologies, like remotely-sensed data and
other large databases, GIS is a powerful tool for the informa-
tion age.
The value to our society of utilizing these types of automated
tools is to incorporate the increasing volumes of data and
information into the decision-making process. Credible
methodologies applied by environmental planners and close
observation by agencies and activists are the irreplaceable
human elements. An intimate sense of what is credible,
needed, and sustainable should be die heart and soul of r
planning, environmental, and development missions, t
data management and analysis tool, GIS can help guide tho-
missions into the future.
REFERENCES
40 Code of Federal Regulations PartslSOO-1508.
Howaid. KJ. 1990. GIS Analyzes Powerline Corridor. GIS World
3(5): 46-49.
Public Law 88-552. 1964.
(USDDU.S. Department of Interior. 1990. Southwest Interti? Project
HS/PA Cultural Resources Impact Assessment Rep - (unpub-
lished document). Boise, ID.
{USDI) U.S. Department of Interior. 1989a. Southwest Interne
Project Public and Agency Scoping Notebook (unpublished
scoping document). Boise. ID.
(USDI) U.S. Department of Interior. 1989b. S- Jiwest Interne
Project Transmission Line Regional Environmental Report (un-
published scoping document). Boise, ID.
(USDI) U.S. Department of Interior. 1986. Visual Resource Con-
trast Rating. BLM Manual Handbook 8431-1. Washington, DC.
1.5.11-12
-------
; •
'
'I!!!, T'lllininl'lH'llKi"" . "i. !!'M»
,,„,, ; ,,,,, „
Determination of Significance
Significance is that characteristic of an impact that determines its degree
of influence on a decision. In the U.S., significance is described in terms of
context and intensity. The significance of an action will vary within the context
of the action (e.g., local vs. global scale) and the intensity (i.e., magnitude) of
the impact. Generally accepted criteria for determination of significance are
described below.
Significance is a key factor in (1) determining the appropriate level of EA
for a proposed action, (2) deciding on measures that avoid or mitigate predicted
impacts, and (3) choosing among alternative actions. If potential impacts are
n thought' to be significant, the EA review generally results in a formal EA
document (i.e., an EIS in the U.S.). When, as a result of the EA process,
predicted impacts are shown to be significant and treatable, mitigation measures
must be included in the EIS and in a public record of decision. However, the
: choice of alternatives is a management decision that is based on many factors
including government policy, applicable laws and regulations, agency mission and
objectives, as well as public values and biological significance.
"ll ' ' :J " «"•'-' "..HI: i ,!!,j i"!!, I,-, , j.
The significance of a proposed action is considered at both the beginning
and the end of the EA process. In the beginning, the proponent determines the
appropriate level of EA review and documentation based on screening the
proposed action. When a proposed action is precedent-setting, unique, and/or the
potential impacts are unknown or thought to be significant or the ability to
mitigate effects is unknown, a formal EA document is appropriate. The public
plays a role early in planning (i.e., during scoping) in determining the
significance of issues and the choice of alternatives for analysis. Determination
of significance at the end of the EA process involves evaluation of the predicted
impacts for each of the alternatives and, as described above, ultimately rests with.
the decisionmaker. Explicit procedures, which identify the values of the public
and the significance of the effects of the alternatives on each value, provide a
better basis for rational analysis, decisionmaking, and public acceptance of the
proposed action.
fn the U.S., the NEPA review and documentation process is predicated on
the significance of proposed federal actions. Elsewhere (e.g., the United
Kingdom), a" significant impact is considered one for which the developer should
=: • :;:::: :: ::: : - ;„: : , ::, .- 1.5.12-1
*For purposes of this document, the term Environmental Assessment (EA) will" relfer to the
Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) process.
i'll SI JlH'Jfi ;!|1iijijiii!",ijii;!;';
-------
seek some form of mitigation. Significance is determined by reference to legal
or accepted standards as far as possible, but if no standard is available, the EA
team evaluates significance basing their determination on clearly described ad hoc
criteria.
NEEDS
It is the job of the EA team to identify, clarify the options and trade-offs,
and summarize the potentially significant impacts for the decisionmaker. For
this, criteria are needed to determine significance of effects of an action on a
particular entity and also a method is needed for scaling effects for each criterion.
• Criteria for significance upon which decisions are based include
the:
— value of the potentially affected entity. Particularly
important are public health and safety, threatened and
endangered species, and important geographic areas (e.g.,
historic sites, park lands, prime farmlands, wetlands, wild
and scenic rivers, ecologically critical areas);
— magnitude of the effect (severity);
— nature of the effect; -
— spatial extent of the effect;
— duration of the effect;
— predicted degree of recovery;
— political repercussions;
— public concern; and
— legal mandates.
Furthermore, actions or effects that are likely to be highly
controversial, involve unique or unknown risks, or establish an
important precedent are also considered to be significant.
• Determination of significance requires predicting change (Part
4.3). These impact predictions are, along with societal values, the
major input to significance determinations. The input must be
good if the output is to be good. Ideally, change should be
compared against thresholds of concern, some of which may be
legally mandated and others which may be levels or states of
valued components determined by the public, the decisionmaker,
or the EA team. However, because all alternatives may be above
the threshold or all may be below the threshold, it is necessary to
at least estimate relative magnitudes of effects in order to compare
significance.
1.5.12-2
-------
Traditionally, the emphasis in EA has been on the biophysical
environment. However, human concerns about project-
environment interactions and the associated risk have contributed
to the development of socioecbnohiic impact assessment (Murdock
et al. 1986). Numerous computerized models are available that
quantitatively integrate social, economic, demographic, public
service, and fiscal impacts (Leistritz and Murdock 1981), but the
models are, most appropriate for large-scale development activities
and are rarely integrated with biological analyses.
.......................... :"" ......... : ..... '" ..... " ........ • ..... """ ........ *'"•'•'''' ..... ' -"; • "'"'-. '":.,'"':;" ! ..'•:•:.-:•; .-: "..•:. |: '••.';;: ..... :•••
The task of evaluating an EIA and communicating the conclusions
to the public and the decisionmakers is complex. It is the
responsibility of the EA team to summarize and highlight the key
findings, including discussion of those issues determined not to be
significant.
Except for exceedance of standards set by government regulations
(e.g., National Ambient Air Quality Standards), the description of
significance is largely judgmental, subjective, and variable.
Conover et al. (1985) present a system to rate impacts as
negligible, minor, moderate or major impacts (Attachment 4.F).
Haug et al. (1984) present a system that ranks thresholds of
potential impacts on the basis of legal factors, principles of sound
resource use, and human preferences. These are described as
having highest, very high, high, moderate, or low priority
(Attachment 4.F). FEARO (1986) described the need to determine
thresholds of concern (i.e. , a maximum or minimum number or
other value for an environmental impact or resource use which, if
exceeded, causes it to take on new importance) based on statistical,
ecological, social, and safety and health significance.
Terms used to describe the significance of project-induced changes
can and should be simple and clearly defined (e.g., major, short-
term, local, regional). In the absence of clear definitions, such
terms are subject to a wide range of interpretation.
Comparison of predicted levels of pollutant emissions or effluents
IS legally mandated thresholds (e.g., against national ambient air
quality standards) can identify exceedances that would clearly
result in significant impacts. However, generally, predicted
impacts are not those related to exceedances of set standards
'"''Si
1.5.12-3
I i
-------
because the reason for such excursions would be mitigated during
project design.
Coordination of surveys and studies required by executive orders
and other environmental review laws (e.g., U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Coordination Act, National Historic Preservation Act, and the
Endangered Species Act) with the preparation of the EIA document
can ensure that protected resources are identified early on and
factored into the decisionmaking process. (Part D summarizes
some of the U.S. environmental laws written to protect specific
resources.)
In addition to legally mandated thresholds, Haug et al. (1984)
discusses functional, normative, controversial, and preference
thresholds (Attachment 4.F). Sometimes an environmental impact
will not be a concern if it is small or if it occurs in an already
disturbed area. However, the significance of such concerns is
usually determined by the affected public. If possible, negotiating
a threshold of concern for an environmental impact or resource use
which, if exceeded, will cause the impact or use to take en new
importance, usually resolves the conflict (Attachment 6.A).
Although establishing numerical values for such thresholds is often
impossible, identification of the concern aids the decisionmaker,
helps to establish monitoring needs or criteria for mitigation, and
satisfies the public.
Risk assessment provides information that can be useful in
weighing alternatives and analyzing trade-offs, especially when
answers are not obvious and available information in ambiguous
and uncertain. However, neither health risk assessment nor
ecological risk assessment (Part 4.3) determines significance. The
significance of an estimated risk is determined by the
decisionmaker.
Professional standards (e.g., general usage and engineering
standards) based on population ratios (e.g., hospital beds/1000
population, recreation acres/1000 population) are often used for
projecting needs for social services. These standards should be
used cautiously because they vary widely from one information
source to another and they are unlikely to be applicable to areas
(particularly rural areas) that are dissimilar to the areas for which
they were developed (Leistritz and Murdock 1981). On the other
hand, the standards are widely used and accepted, easy to apply,
and some of the standards are based on analytical analyses.
1.5.12-4
-------
ffi
..... ' ..... :,?Si,
' ...... ' ....... :
. . 1 •' ............ :
Public opinion and the level of controversy associated with a
proposed action help to identify and to determine the relative
significance of environmental impacts. Useful "input requires that
the public be informed on the proposed action, alternatives, and
major potential impacts, and encouraged to participate in the EA
process, particularly during scoping and document review.
However, it has been documented that public meetings do not
naturally attract the representative cross-section of society that
would provide a balanced input to the EA process (Thompson
1990). Thus, values and significance are probably determined by
groups of self-selected people.
I
" ! ":"\/" "' ' ISSUES
The technical interpretation of significance is based on impact
assessment techniques that exist on a continuum from those that
simply summarize to those that also evaluate impacts (Part 4.3).
Westman (1985) notes that all of the quantitative assessment
"'tecnniques can" be criticized from one br'anotner perspective:
either they summarize too much or not enough';''attempt'to quantify
based on inadequate (subjective) data or remain too qualitative; are
itrary and incomplete in their selection of impacts to include or
too exhaustive; "'""ariS"]take away too much judgment from
decisionmakers or leave too much to be decided. However, he
notes that the need for evaluation is inescapable. In the absence
of explicit evaluation, implicit evaluation is performed by
decisionmakers. The job of the EA team is to choose methods
whose assumptions and data requirements are appropriate to the
task and to remind the decisipnrnaker of the assumptions and
limitations of the evaluation methods being used (Westman 1985).
Even the use of legally-set standards to detearrhihe 'significance" can
i nil ill HI 111 ninn 11 i iii! *: i i!!:!iii!,,i",si!!,,!ii.ii,iP i T, • , ¥... „ ir S
be misleading. Standards are compromise figures based on
scientific information on species tolerance to toxic substances,
primarily from single-species bioassays and, to a lesser extent,
from field studies. A panel of experts determines the
recommended "standard" based on available literature. Thus, even
legally set standards are only crude guides to acceptable levels of
protection (Westman 1985).
Some recent papers on the value of EA methods suggest that the
| ii i in HI || || ||| || || i * f C'C'
accuracy of prediction in EA leaves much to be desired (Thompson
1990, Attachment 4.G; Tomlinson and Atkinson 1987; Bisset
1988; Elliot 1981, Attachment 4.D; Hollick 1986). there is
uncertainty associated with determinations of significance that are
iiiiii
1.5.12-5
111 !'''lil;" ' "'*' :"" '""!l1
III1"!' ''liinS, ',!'!:. i " • i ''».,' V
n1,; : 1,11 •, ,.,;!!' ,, ; lut ."'l"ij,
' : : :":'' :'':1'
'"" " "''"• ' • «' '™'i ' - ' ' ''" ..!'".! . - -
IW!1 ' "I'll,:,,!', is111* ,' ,1,1 '111! "'!' Vil'i''"" , "! •?"". ' ,'liniS i:".!1'
• i ' lilllji,: • ••(!:*' 'j .. .Jf'lltii" fl'rll , , '; ! ( .„>'.. !J.|"! . : if.
*' • „ ' • iln ;11ii":i ... . "! j „ i,
" :: . i:, ' m" . ' »i in ,i limn „ ' , ,. ;j i, 4 1 1 ip
I*?',"'! "•'" • vi' ::;; '•(:> •••>•••< : .vi1 " '..',••.''.'>(
't,:t::! ii '•'; • • ,., i', 1' * "J\ -:Wi '/"':,;"'<;'
> -;'1;;; ' ; ',.• <: .\'t^ J "" ", •|.!;(t.;^ ' , :i"! "S ';,
II „ ' ''' , "I1'' V'"'i'' E! i '»i'', v"'-'i"' . ' Jl '1,
, ,, | ' i " ; i ^i/liil/; ',"; ! '' 'lin! X j1; ; ' it!, |
' ' ' ' •' " ' " ;::":l • ' '" -'" -; ~- ->'''
• „ , i ' .j:;:1:11, ' ' / " ,i "i - f i" ii. win: < ii. ',
{;?-:,.' •••::l!f^:'l"'Vi^'.fc^j'i'.,p;l?
f ;:.;..;_• ^ ."(iAfe; v:;' :i/t: .Muty'fe
1 ..'I'1 , ' "l "»' '"'' ii, " ""> , ;' " i1""1' ''tiilijiill!1 ', ill I'!' V ',,".'
"•/ '" : : ' - ;V, " ''^ -1-""" -";~'-"': -""•-''•
"' •'• :
''Sf'SI
« i1/1 < inn
".' .I.". ' ; !! !
-:;: :— r
-------
predictive methods. Comparison of proposed actions to similar
ongoing activities is suggested as a way to reduce the level of
uncertainty.
• Public perception of the significance of an issue is influenced by
(1) the existence of competing demands for the resource in
question, (2) differences in human values regarding the relative
worth of resources, and (3) the availability of knowledge and level
of understanding of the costs, benefits, and risks related to the
issue (Westman 1985). Ensuring that the public who has (or
should have) a substantive interest in the proposed action plays a
role in deciding the issues is the most effective way of determining
the significance of the issues and also is the most effective way of
avoiding conflict.
LINKAGES
Significance is linked to almost all aspects of EA. Initially, the required
level of documentation is determined by screening at the initiation stage of EA
review. For those actions thought to have potentially significant effects, an EIA
is prepared. During scoping, the public has the opportunity to identify significant
issues, and these significant issues and concerns help to determine the range of
alternatives that are analyzed during assessment. Decisionmaking is based on the
significance of the predicted environmental impacts along with other economic
and technical considerations and agency statutory missions. Mitigation is
designed to reduce potentially significant effects that are unavoidable or to
compensate for them. It is usually associated with a monitoring program during
and after implementation of the project.
REFERENCES
Bisset, R. 1988. Developments in EIA methods. In: Environmental Impact
Assessment, Theory and Practice (ed. P. Wathern). Unwin Hyman,
Boston. 332pp.
Bonano, E. J., S. C. Hora, R. L. Keeney, and D. von Winterfeidt. 1990.
Elicitation and use of expert judgment in performance assessment for
high-level radioactive waste repositories. NUREG/CR-5411. Sandia
National Laboratory, Albuquerque, New Mexico.
Buffington, J. D., R. K. Sharma, and J. T. McFadden. 1980. Assessment of
ecological damage: consensus. In: Biological Evaluation of
Environmental Impacts, The Proceedings of a Symposium. Fish and
Wildlife Service. FWS/OBS-80/26.
1.5.12-6
-------
Burton, I., J. Wilson, and R. E. Munn. 1983. Environmental impact
assessment: national approaches and international needs. Environmental
Monitoring and Assessment 3:133-150.
Cohrssen, J. J., and V. T. Covello. 1989. "Risk" Analysis: A Guide to
Principles and Methods for Analyzing Health and Environmental Risks.
Council on 'Environmental Quality, Washington, D.C. 407pp. Available
from the National Technical InTo'rmation Service, U.S. Department of
Commerce, 5285 Port ftoyaTRoaif,Springfield, Virginia 22161.
Conoverj S. A. M.'^ K. W. Strong, f. 1. Hickey, and F. 'Sander. 1985. An
evolving framework for environmental impact analysis I. methods.
Journal of Environmental Management 2 1:343-358.
Elliot, M. L. 1981. Pulling the pieces together: amalgamation in environmental
impact assessment. Environmental Impact Assessment Review 2:11-38.
Federal Environmental Assessment Review Office (FEARO). 1986. Initial
Assessment Guide. Federal Environmental 'Assessment Review Office.
Ottawa, Ontario. 36pp.
Giroult, E. 1988. World Health Organization interest in environmental health
impact assessment, in: Environmental Impact Assessment, Theory and
Practice (ed. P. Wathem). Unwin Hyman, Boston. 332 pp.
Haug, P. T., R. W. Burwell, A. Stein, and B. L. Bandwiski. 1984.
Determining the significance of environmental issues under the National
Environmental Policy Act. Journal of Environmental Management 18:15-
24.
ii in niii
• '„"' IT • it i :
Hirsch, A, 1980. The baseline study as a tool in environmental impact
assessment. In: Biological Evaluation of Environmental Impacts, The
Proceedings of a Symposium. Fish and Wildlife Service. FWS/OBS-
80/26.
Hollick, M. 1986. Environmental impact assessment:
evaluation. Environmental Management 10:157-178.
an international
James, T. E. Jr., S. C. Ballard, and M. C. Devine. 1983. Regional
environmental assessments for policy making and research and
development planning. Environmental Impact Assessment Review 4:9-24.
'* 1 i 'i ' 'll'illu'lilll . Ml", "•,.
': i;, ili'iili',. .ii!::1, iV1:
1.5.12-7
I (
I" I'l I1'1" 111
1 till 111
III III II
III 111
-------
Leistritz, F. L., and S. H. Murdock. 1981. The Socioeconomic Impact of
Resource Development: Methods for Assessment. Westview
Press/Boulder, Colorado. 286 pp.
Murdock, S. H., F. L. Leistritz, and R. R. Hamm. 1986. The state of
socioeconomic impact analysis in the United States of America:
limitations and opportunities for alternative futures. Journal of
Environmental Management 23:99-117.
Richmond, H. M. 1981. A framework for assessing health risks associated with
national ambient air quality standards. The Environmental Professional
3:225-233.
Schaffman, P. 1986. Assessing the assessors: toward "risk aware" courts.
Environmental Impact Assessment Review 6:331-343.
Thompson, M. A. 1990. Determining impact significance in EIA: a review of
24 methodologies. Journal of Environmental Management 30:235-250.
Tomlinson, P., and S. F. Atkinson. 1987. Environmental audits: a literature
review. Environmental Monitoring and Assessment 8:239-261.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1992. Framework for Ecological Risk
Assessment. EPA/630/R-92/001.
Westman, W. E. 1985. Ecology, Impact Assessment, and Environmental
Planning. John Wiley & Sons. New York. 532 pp.
1.5.12-8
-------
FOR DESCRIBING SIGNIFICANCE OF IMPACTS
•;; ^ . ... , , , :j
Impact definitions currently used in the Canadian approach to biophysical
environmental impact analysis. (Source: Conover, S. A. M., K. W. Strong, T. E.
Hickey, arid F. Sander. 1985. An evolving framework for environmental impact
analysis. I. methods. Journal of Environmental Management 21:343-358)
Thresholds of potential impacts. (Source: Haug, P. f., R. W. Burwell, A. Stein, arid
B. L. Banduski. 1984. Deterriiining the significance of environmental issues under the
National Environmental Policy Act. Journal of Environmental Management 18:15-24)
ill! !,n
if! '•
•LI" :
'I!1'!" i'11'!!; ' I "'.I-
1.5.13-1
ill I lull
\ ; :. b!l !i; '?„;;,
LJLUHIJJJLJI J y.
-------
1.5.13-2
-------
Impact definitions currently used in the Canadian approach to biophysical
environmental impact analysis. (Source: Conover, S. A. M., K. W. Strong.
T. E. Hickey, and F. Sander. 1985. An evolving framework for environmental
impact analysis. I. methods. Journal of Environmental Management 21:343-
358)
Impact Definitions
A Major Impact is defined as one affecting a whole population or species in sufficient
magnitude to cause a decline in abundance and/or change in distribution beyond which natural
recruitment (reproduction, immigration from unaffected areas) would not return that population
or species, or any population or species dependent on it, to its former level within several
generations. (In some instances, with respect to resource use by humans, an impact that might
n(jt,,,satisf£ the above conditions might nevertheless result in significant effects on the human
user. Thus, a major impact may also be classified as one that affects a subsistence or
commercial activity to the detriment of the user.)
' ll'1'1 'Ill|llli ' lllb ' !!l' !'' - i 11 HI I IIIII iiIII ill |
A Moderate Impact is defined as one affecting a portion of a population which may result
in a change in abundance and or distribution over one or more generations of that portion of the
population or any population dependent on it, but which does not change the integrity of any
population as a whole. It may be localized.
A Minor Impact is defined as one affecting a specific group of individuals in a population
at a localized area and/or over a short period (one generation or less), but not affecting other
trophic levels or the integrity of the population itself.
A Negligible Impact is defined as one affecting the population or specific group of
individuals at a localized area and/or over a short period in such a way as to be similar in effect
to small random changes in the population due to environmental vagaries, but having no
measurable effect on the population as a whole.
In many instances, either no interaction occurs, or the interaction does riot"resul* in an
impact of any sort. Such instances will be identified as no impact.
In some cases, & positive impact may be registered. These will also be identified, using
the same definitions as above with the positive nature of the impact identified.
1.5.13-3
n'5^"-i'" :>i « v •:.- £i.'«••„ ,M, :;; ,,;*; '„;; . ;;?
a ."'.'. • ..i.
''"''•i '!'<•'"ii ilfHI^iK* .1 ailllHi SIIIB! li,!!!.!IK^
-------
Thresholds of potential impacts. (Source: Haug, P. T., R. W. Burwell, A.
Stein, and B. L. Bandusld. 1984. Determining the significance of environmental
issues under the National Environmental Policy Act. Journal of Environmental
Management 18:15-24)
Thresholds of Potential Impacts
Highest priority - legal thresholds. Thresholds of impacts or resource use established by
law or regulation. These may not be exceeded under any circumstances.
Very high priority -functional thresholds. Thresholds established for resource use, or
thresholds involving unavoidable adverse impacts on the human environment, and so great that,
if these thresholds are exceeded, the impacts will disrupt the functioning of an ecosystem
sufficiently to destroy resources important to the nation or biosphere irreversibly and/or
irretrievably.
High priority - normative thresholds. Thresholds of impacts or resource use that are
clearly established by social norms, usually at the local or regional level, and often tied to social
or economic concerns.
Moderate priority - controversial thresholds. Thresholds of impacts or resource use that
are highly controversial, or which are sources of conflict between various individuals, advocacy
groups, or organizations, and which do not warrant higher priority for other reasons.
Low priority - preference thresholds. Thresholds of impacts or resource use that are
preferences of individuals, groups, or organizations only, as distinct from society at large, and
which do not warrant higher priorities for other reasons.
1.5.13-4
-------
DETERMINING IMPACT SIGNIFICANCE IN EIA
' ' ,5 ', i,,,,; • „„; !
Thompson, M. A. 1990. Determining impact significance in EIA: a review of 24
methodologies. Journal of Environmental Management 30:235-250.
Till, if ', linn,!;!', '1:1, ii" „,,";„ ;," ml'l',„,„! ,|, ;', , ' 1,,, : '" I , ,f HI: ,, '„ !'n I '.,,''' ,,',|,,'ii, IP.i'.ip! „ iiilim ,!l ,, i •'. ."PP1; I, ll
ill III I 111
iiiH'iiiiiiiiiiiiiiniiip'ivi, i ''Pi L ppn, ,TP: IPP ,,' '
'pi innnpip,:i,i, 11 ,ipp,i i, JLPIP', p, ,
ll'ii ilin1!'! ! ir'Kr ,-,'iiii '" ip III"!,1";" 'I : in
iiip'iiiipppi'i ,,,,isi ,piiii ,,,';i:,iil a, nip1 , ,„ "inn, :pi,ipr
||iiiiii,iihiin|, ,,i p» a" in ,"' i, „,; „
i!,'!!!"1!1!;,'1 "I,;,; t ,1 ' • ,;.i.; ," .• „ ,,| -ti1 ,',, ,;•• , p.:
iltliBii,:,,,'if „ 'S!;V ; I H' n* 'i:^1'!:^., IKEi i,;;" •'• • •• '•'*.••",!.••:
Illllll I II
Illllll
Illllll I (111
Ilitll " 'I'lllFr 'I/'"!,!';!, i l,i] ,i,:'ii,ii i'"i lupin, 'Ii
lip1, l'";ii"!li'i ill.!,,,;;: :, iiiii, I'- ; I.;, i1:!,1' .iiiii!".] ;.' <'•••. , " ,„",• ;;, •> ,,' v 'i;;;' „;!,,f i . ,j, IT in, 'li* •<& 4 .'..i,
Km:i .'I'likk;: I ' ,'i.iipiti!:ii 1.r,I^ll'l,' iiilliiii fi'l:,,:t. '.•,?i;, A T ''II"1,1'''•; i, ',jt i,,,': •,;'.' i";;' ii' A ; "I, "' r:/• J: 1 i;, '•; i»"*r;;; •
-------
1.5.14-2
-------
f.-.i.
Jtmmal «f Bmtfamttari Management (1990) 30,235-250
Nil
: Determining Impact Significance in EIA: a Review of 24
j; | Methodologies \
1 I ! ;
Mark A. Thompson
78 Atherford Road, London SW9. U.K.
Received 23 November 1988
The determination of impact significance from predictions of impact magnitude
is a source of much debate among proponents and practitioners of
environmental impact assessment (EIA). Of particular concern has been the use
of formal quantitative methodologies for comparing project alternatives in
order to produce a total impact score for each alternative. It has been suggested
that this technique removes the responsibility for the decision from the hands of
elected decision-makers. This study concerns a review of 24 EIA methodologies,
concentrating on the way in which each addresses the issue of impact
significance. The methodologies are each assigned to one of six groups
according to their performance against a number of basic criteria. The
characteristics of each group are outlined with, by way of illustration, a
description of one methodology from each group. A set of IS evaluative criteria
is then presented. These criteria emerged from discussions with a number of
EIA practitioners and from reviews of previous general critiques of
methodologies. The criteria are then used to re-evaluate the 24 methodologies in
order to display the merits and limitations of each, and to highlight attributes
essential to any worthwhile methodology. Finally, recommendations for a
coherent approach to EIA and warnings against using unsuitable techniques are
presented, together with suggestions for future training and research that might
benefit EIA practice.
Keywords: environmental impact assessment, significance, methodology
1. Introduction ~~ ~ • T-
The recent implementation of the European Directive on Environmental Assessment
(8S/337/EEC) makes environmental impact assessment (EIA) mandatory for certain!
types of development project and discretionary for many others. It is likely that the next
few years will see an increase in the number of EIAs produced. The directive has the ;
following to say regarding the application of EIA in the planning process:
... development consent for public and private projtc" ' oh are likely to have significant
effects on the environment should be granted only alter prior assessment of the likely
significant environmental effects of these projects has been car-' ' mit (Council of the
European Communities, 1985),
030M7'
'VTjjjtoa:
1235+16103.00/0
© 1990 Academic Press Limited
13*
DttetnWBc teHrtMfatftcuce ti E! A
- f . -- - - §
This need to determine "signj&tntjleflects'* reinforces Hie importmce of understanding -
the various methods that can be used to arrive at a 1st of significant impacts.
I
t*T;;
2. CMf catltrt of EIA nwt&odotoftes accordlaf (o treatment of Impact
significance
In order that EIA may fulfil its function as a decision-making tool, it is necessary tha
there be a clear distinction between impact magnitude and impact significance. Th
former is arrived at by prediction based upon empirical measurement, the latter is a
expression of the cost of a predicted impact to society. Previous studies have tended tu
stress the organizational characteristics of EIA methodologies, classifying them as being
of an Ad Hoc, Checklist, Matrix, Network or Overlay type. It is felt that a rcclassifica-
tion on the basis of the approaches used to determine significance is more appropriate.
Accordingly, a group of 24 methodologies has been examined for the extent to which
they fulfil the following criteria:
I. Is the issue of impact significance considered at all, and, if so, is it handled
discretely from impact magnitude?
2. Can the methodological guidelines for determining significance be described as:
(a) precise and explicit? . .
(b) non-existent?
(c) intermediate between (a) and (b)?
3. Are directions given for aggregation of impacts for use in comparing project
alternatives?
4. Does the methodology explicitly require an element of public participation?
Whilst it is recognized that the methodologies could arguably be represented as
different points on a continuum, it is felt that six discrete groupings can be defined using
the above criteria (see Figure I) from which further assessment can proceed. By way of
illustration, an example from each of the six groups is presented.
2.1. GROUP I
The Water Resources Assessment Methodology (WRAM) (Solomon el al., 1977) makes
explicit use of scaling and weighting methods. Environmental, social and economic
components are weighted by an interdisciplinary team using a ranked painvise compari-
son technique. Scaling is achieved by three alternative approaches; the use of the scaling
part of the weighted ranking technique; the use of function curves (see also Dee el at.,
1973); and the proportioning of resulting scaled impacts. Full details are included on
how this scaling may be carried out. Values obtained for the effects of each alternative on
specific environmental components are expressed in terms of "alternative choice co-
efficients". Weighting and scaling values are multiplied in a matrix to produce a final
aggregate score for each alternative. At no stage is there an input of public opinion.
2.2. GROUP 2
The Crawford Methodology (Crawford, 1973) has less explicit guidelines than those
exhibited in group I. It was devised for use in highway route planning and makes
ningand
-------
M. A. Thompson
i—3-
i
!!
L—l!-
,
«*
all
n'-i
1SII1
i«!
•^a »
fill
i
jlP
dli
I
S | ? N ,9
5; i a • t
|U
a
I
238
Determining Impact significance In EIA
extensive use of public involvement by employing a Delphi technique on three reference
publics to gather information for the following:
I. The assigning of relative weights.
2. The prediction of consequences for the alternatives to be evaluated.
3. Estimations of probability for the predicted consequences.
4. Numbers to represent the magnitude of the impact of each consequence on each
evaluative criterion.
An interdisciplinary panel of experts is responsible for predicting consequences and
estimating probabilities for each highway corridor alternative. Estimates of impact
magnitude are developed on a seven point scale, from + 3 to - 3. The impact of an
alternative on each of a set of evaluative criteria is then calculated by multiplying impact
size by its probability. Results are then presented showing each highway alternative as a
percentage of the maximum possible positive or negative impact. Crawford presents this
as a basis for analysing the value trade-offs involved in a decision between project
alternatives.
2.3. GROUP 3
The PADC methodology (Clark et al., 1983) favours a dis-aggregated presentation of
impacts (i.e. there is no attempt to group impacts under generic headings) and there is no
specific mechanism for public involvement. Significance, for each impact, is determined
by a choice on each of the following five polarities:
1. Adverse/Beneficial
2. Short-term/Long-term
3. Reversible/Irreversible
4. Direct/Indirect
S. Local/Strategic
Qualitative statements of significance such as this could clearly be aggregated by
summing the numbers within each polarity. To do so would, however, implicitly weigh
all impacts equally. No indication is given as to how comparisons between alternatives
may be made, although the use of "Summary Sheets" as an aid to identification of
important impacts is suggested. Ranking and weighting of impacts is also mentioned,
but with a warning to guard against creating an "illusion of objectivity".
2.4. GROUP 4
The Leopold matrix (Leopold et al., 1971) contains no guidelines on how significance
should be determined. There is no attempt at aggregation of impacts, nor any input of
public opinion. The technique influenced the development of many subsequent metho-
dologies, employing matrix cells to relate project activities to environmental parameters.
The matrix cells are bisected by a diagonal line, above which is entered a value for impact
magnitude whilst below is placed a value for importance. Definitions of magnitude and
importance are presented and it is proposed that:
... evaluations of the importance of impact, generally will be based on the vahr
the evaluator. (Leopold, 1971 p. 2).
•went of
-------
(sir;
'r .'
|IJ fflP
tlr S
i (»!
if
Ol
i—t
fk
Ui
!!! A rating schcmctfrom I to 10 is suggested as ajneans of discouraging purely
subjective opinion and the method asks that impact "statements should contain the
reasoning behind the assignment of values for magnitude and importance.
2.5, GROUP 5
The Fischer and Davis methodology (Fischer and Davis, 1973) does not explicitly
differentiate between impact magnitude and significance. A complex three-phase process
is handled by an interdisciplinary team to develop an implicit indicator of significance.
Impacts are assigned a " + " (benefit) or " - " (cost), for which some guidance is given,
and the degree ofimpact from 1 (low) to 5 (high) is assigned subjectively by the team.
Additionally an "s" or "I" suffix is used to indicate short-term or long-term impacts.
Those achieving plus or minus 4 or 5 scores are transferred from an "environmental
compatibility matrix" to a "decision matrix".
The exclusion of "low strength" impacts from the decision matrix can be seen as
risking the loss of valuable information, or as focusing the study upon "key issues",
depending upon one's viewpoint. The authors claim that the methodology:
... recognises that many decisions are based upon judgement and works to sharpen that;,
judgement ralher than increase precision at Ihe expense of clarity. (Fischer and Davis, 1973, p.» j
225.) ;
2,6. GROUP 6
The Loran methodology (Loran, 1975) does not consider significance explicitly and-
makes no specific provision for input of public opinion. It uses a matrix of 234 project,
activities and 27 environmental features. Each element is scaled according to a forecast
severity of impact from 0 (none) to 5 (severe) by the interdisciplinary team. The result i&
'recorded using a computer algorithm and a primitive aggregation of impacts is achieved
via a "clustering" of highly rated impacts. :;
It is suggested that the technique serves to identify critical environmental areas. No ;
further evaluation is made and it is not clear how project variant discrimination should
proceed. Neither is it clear how isolated high impact values, distant from the "clusters" |
should be treated.
2.7 1
The different approaches to handling impact significance, represented by the above:
examples, exhibit a wide range of techniques from highly quantitative through to
qualitative. Whilst it is not suggested that any are ideal, many incorporate ideas or;
techniques that could be included in any useful EIA methodology. Having outlined thes
existing range of EIA methodologies, the following section presents a number of
attributes which it is felt are either essential or desirable in an EIA methodology. On the
basis of these attributes, the 14 methodologies are further evaluated.
3. Evaluation of EIA methodologies
Information gained from three sources namely: the review of 2 'nJologies already
presented, together with conclusions drawn from discussions with a number of EIA
practitioners, and examination of general methodology reviews (see, for example,
*** ' ' * DttrnmMoj br^ct ilinfRcmct ta EU
Environimental Resources Ltd, 1981) provided theibasis for the set of evaluative criteria^
that follows. lib felt that using the experience gained in the practical application of ElAi j
to evaluate and criticise methodologies should serve to highlight a group of components* 5
to be included in any useful methodology. The wide variety of applications to which ElAs
can be put, however, precludes the possibility of defining a single technique of universal! .
suitability. The following list of criteria should be used as a guide to Table I wherein the *
extent to which the methodologies fulfil the criteria is shown. | J
3.1. JS IMPACT SIGNIFICANCE CONSIDERED DISCRETE FROM IMPACT MAGNITUDE?
1!
It is of paramount importance to the EIA process that an attempt is made to ascribe1 <
significance to any given impact. Not to do so is to leave a project unrelated to the
proposed receiving environment. As each site is unique, it will respond in a unique way *
to any given development. Statements of impact magnitude will, therefore, differ in i1
significance between any two sites. What the decision-maker requires is an expression of '.
this significance. As applied to the 24 methodologies, this criterion differentiates between *
those that present raw or scaled data with a derived value to indicate significance, and •>
those that simply present one value to indicate importance.
3.2. IS SEMI-AGGREGATION THE END RESULT OF THE PROCESS?
The attraction of an aggregate "final score" for each project alternative at the end of a
complex assessment procedure is understandable. An "answer" may be felt to help <
justify expenditure of effort and resources. The main disadvantage of this approach is
that scores mask the strengths and weaknesses within each project alternative. This
works against the interests of effective project modification because information needed
to perform trade-offs between different areas of impact is obscured. *
In contrast, semi-aggregation, where impacts are grouped under any number of,
suitable headings such as "ecology" and "infrastructure" makes clear which project
alternative will produce the best result in relation to any given heading. This allows the
decision-maker to draw conclusions based upon a relatively small number of trade-offs
and the degree of priority he or she feels is appropriate to different areas of concern. For
instance, if "ecology" and "agriculture" are favoured, alternative "A" may be chosen,
whilst weighting in favour of "housing" and "employment" might lead alternative "B"
to be chosen.
Semi-aggregation should also help to avoid giving the misleading impression of
scientific accuracy to which full aggregation of impacts is prone. It has been argued that
the latter may be used to avoid scrutiny by members of the lay public. Bisset (1978)—
remarks that:
Those who choose the method of assessment are able to make a strategic choice which may
give a tactical advantage when pursuing a particular outcome. (Bisset, 1978, p. 56.)
He suggests that opposition views may be weakened by putting them through a method
designed to overcome opposition and so remove assessment from public debate. Mobbs
(1985) also advises caution on the use of impact amalgamation which, it is argued,
should only proceed to a level consistent with maximum clarification of trade-offs. This
leaves room for the essential subjective element of the assessment process that is the
responsibility of the elected and accountable decision-maker.
-------
M. A. Thompson 241
3.3. ARE METHODS PROPOSED TO ENSURE PUBLIC PARTICIPATION?
The significance of an impact is essentially an expression of the cost or value of an
impact to society. Bcanlands and Duinker (1983) state that:
... what is really of concern at the decision-making level is the significance to society as
determined through social and economic values. Significance... cannot be confined to what
we regard as biologically significant. (Beantands and Duinker, 1983, p. 45.)
The focus of EIA, therefore, must be a judgement as to whether or not impacts are
significant, based upon the value-judgements of society, or groups of people chosen to
represent the wishes of society. As stated by Pattison (1976):
Our benchmarks for clean air, clean water or clean streets have less to do with a definable
"degrees above zero" than with what various members of the public consider acceptable or
attainable. No matter how accurately the probability and magnitude of certain fish kills are
quantified, the "impact" of such kills is essentially subjective, loaded with emotional factors
not amenable to cost value analysis. It is the impact of a particular set of findings or
predictions upon the minds of men, not the impact of the pollutant on the environment per se
that is our key unknown. (Pattison, 1976.)
If this is accepted, then it is clear that an assessment of the way in which significance is
handled by EIA methodologies should include consideration of the value-judgements
made, whose values they actually represent, and whether or not they can be taken as
representative of society as a whole.
Unless a methodology contains specific provision for an element of public opinion,
there is a danger that the views of study-team members may exert undue influence upon
the result. Few would question the use of experts to define impact magnitude, but leaving
them as sole arbiters of significance is open to challenge. O'Riordan (1976) quotes
Joseph Sax, a noted American lawyer and EIA advocate:
... the special knowledge of the highly trained mind produces its own limitations, and it may
be argued that expertise sacrifices the light of common sense to the intensity of experience. It
breeds an inability to accept new views from the very depths of its preoccupation with its own
conclusions There is also a class spirit about it so experts tend to neglect all evidence that
does not come from their own ranks. Above all, where human problems are concerned, the
expert fails to see that whatever judgements he makes, which are not purely factual in nature,
bring with them a score of values which has no special validity about it. (O'Riordan, 1976, p.
279.)
An example of expert judgement likely to be at odds with public opinion can be
found in the Battelle methodology (Dee et al., 1973) where, as observed by Dickert and
Domeny (1974) the assignment of over a third of possible weighting points to
environmental pollution, whilst only 26 (out of a total 1000) go to housing and
employment opportunities, is unlikely to find favour with those from tow socio-
economic groups.
There is a clear need to achieve a balance between expert opinion and the wishes of
society in general. The assignment of weights in favour of long-let in considerations such
as the continued integrity of ecological systems may be at odds wi'1 •' • more immediate
socio-economic needs of large sections of society, but, if the EIA |<. u to gain the
support c' general public, then their immediate needs cannot be (unlocked.
X
8
3'
5
3$
"a
s«
r*l
&$
n
»<
X
s
^
y
to
o -*
o n
j- j
o'S
a«
of
x
X
x
x
x
X
w
11
2 <*
li
n wi
?s
»<
X
x
to
la
S s
So
nZ
M
0
X
x
k
=
OT)
0°
S3
sa
i§
3 ;*
IT 2
«g
»«
H
o 3
-"
U)
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
o
II
£ 2
*,s
o-<
^Tft
3 8.
So
%
a
CL
3"
x
x
x
x
x
X
x
to
2 C
3»
o|
-• 3"
a£
33
" 9
\ 3
°-a.
a
x
x
x
as
5?
m <
S*
*.i
^
5?
»!
n
X
->1
1?
*• c
is
tf
2-3
«&
5 °
3 tr>
S 5
si
a.
X
x
m
?£
<• C
S-
8 a
13
33.
Si
«
A
x
X
en
O-O
M
v -
S S
ll
S.S
t£l
c
« 1
<
(0
*
IS
0 0
S ~"
S o
uc
3°
!fs
o 2
9- S'
0°
g 5'
X
x
X
X
k
W
c *
T™
*$
*3
H8
3!t
5
M
(*
x
X
M
if
as
-**J
Z&
0 °
ft »
?
A
0.
x
x
-
Q.C/1
A tQ
5 3
n 5.
S§
°8
§"
£§
5 3
ca
a. 2
•» S
X
x
X
X
X
X
x
x
x
x
m
«
a
c
a
1
o
tS
a
II £260
IOI933Q
(3261)
;snojx
(3261) '3*ois
(9961) IMH 9
o
(8261) ui!3MPUOS N
(£261) PJOJHD13
X
X
X
x
x
x
X
X
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
X
X
X
X
X
X
x
X
x
x
X
X
x
x
x
x
x
X
x
X
x
X
X
x
x
X
x
X
X
X
x
x
X
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
(£861) S
ID 13 V°n 01
(U6I) §
/o/apiodoai £
(2/61) 83IAJ8S
•suoa |ios
(5/61) s'M>a
pUDjaqsij „
(2161) «joj 1«OJI g
AOU36D>||IH«J T]
(Ei6l)«iuaa "
lODdUJI Ml 3
(U6l)S'«3T
PUD UOHD/Vl
(2961) 6'DH3W
(5261) UD'°T
(W6I) 31'n9
puo sn'unv ^
(t,6ll 3
1013 A)|SUI|)»A S
(W6I) OPDUD3 <*'
IU3UJUOJIAU3
(£261) P'Oi||iqoH
pUO A9U39M
(1261) "?
E
I
3
a
I
o
"8.
8
|
-------
= - -- ==- - :-==•£ = - -
• i i* ^mi irfi i,-i =
in
! !!!
M. A. Thomfwn ' ' ^ : _J. — ;-;: 143
1H 1 ^ Ei = - ~ "^ - - *' :
The difficulty in achieving effective public! participation wasThligfiighW in work by '
Ertel (1979). The following are statistics for the attendees of a public meeting:
1. 13-1 % of attendees were not educated beyond secondary school level.
2. 37-7% had done college work. :
3. 48-1% had college degrees. :S
4. 35-5% had yearly family incomes in excess of $20000. K
It was further revealed that 44-8% had attended more than five public meetings in the '*
preceding five years and that 36-7% held elective or governmental positions. This result
suggests that public meetings do not naturally attract the representative cross-section of
society that would provide a balanced input to the EIA process. •;
It is therefore apparent that special efforts must be made to involve the disadvan-
taged and less well-educated sections of society. Over half the attendees in the survey -•;
were present as a result of receiving a direct postal invitation, far fewer having responded
to media advertisements. This suggests that personal invitations to members of target ~:
populations may help redress the balance. Another remedy may lie with the use of ,
polling or extensive questionnaire surveys, an effective example of which, the Yosemite
National Park Master Plan, is outlined in McAllister (1980).
As applied in Table I, the methodologies that qualify are those in which public
participation is an integral part. In others, such as Stover (1972) and Clark el al. (1983)
participation is suggested, but left to the discretion of the study-team. :'
Ur
3.4. IS THE LEVEL OF QUANTIFICATION RESTRICTED TO THAT ADEQUATE FOR A
DECISION?
From the beginning of an assessment, the aim of the study must be clearly defined, based
on an appreciation of the exact nature of the decision to be made. Study resources
should then be directed towards a continual clarification of the main issues involved and I
a refining of the study team's judgement. Quantification of impacts far beyond the point,;;:
where the difference between alternatives is apparent may be wasteful of resources that J
would be better used on areas of study where differences are less clear. The methodolo-
gies that score on t'his criterion do not advocate exhaustive attention to detail. •*
3.5. ARE QUANTITATIVE AND QUALITATIVE DATA PRESENTED TOGETHER?
The attraction of quantitative data lies in their apparent objectivity, whether real or .
illusory, and with the fact that they facilitate easy comparison between alternatives.:.
Where both quantitative and qualitative data are presented, care should be exercised
that the former are not given undue importance. On no account should qualitative data
be discarded because they do not fit conveniently into an assessment technique; instead,
a way must be found to incorporate them. Certain imparts may be better presented in a
quantitative manner whilst others lend themselves to a qualitative treatment. Criteria
number five highlights those methodologies where both types '' are likely to be;;
presented. The extent to which they are segregated to allow en moderation is,:;™
however,airesentational matter, the success of which will vary from one case to the
„„. •
m " D«»Mi«J«ti>i:hnH« «*X»l»ci»« hi EIA
3.6i!sruDYT8^M rx)ai^WEmTUNo^^Bi^^J^^^c&oNTI^EOt^roM8 I |;
The shortcomings inherent in relying solely upon expert opinion when assigning
significance to impacts were outlined in 3, This criterion applies to those methodologies
where some input of public opinion serves to limit the influence of the study team.
3.7. IS A STRUCTURED GROUP DECISION-MAKING TECHNIQUE SUGGESTED?
Methods used by a study team to achieve consensus on key issues can have an effect on
the outcome and are thus worthy of consideration. The effectiveness of various methods
was investigated by Delbecq and Van de Ven (1974). Although not applied specifically to
EIA, their study is of interest as it shows a way in which consensus decisions might best
be achieved. A comparison was conducted between conventional interacting groups, the
Delphi technique, and one of their own devising, the Nominal Group Technique. The
latter uses a strict procedure for group meetings. The meeting begins with all participants
writing down ideas. One idea from each person is taken in turn and written on an agenda
board. These ideas are discussed for clarification before independent voting via ranking
or rating is used to reach decisions.
The three methods were assessed for their ability to bring new ideas to light, and oh
the satisfaction with the decision-making process as expressed by those taking part.
Results suggested that there exist a number of inhibiting influences that decrease the
performance of conventional interacting groups in decision-making. These included too
much time being spent on maintaining the social/emotional relationships of group
members, and not enough on actual business. An absence of time to think things
through individually, a tendency for group norms to emphasize conforming behaviour
and for discussions to dwell on areas of agreement at the expense of areas of conflict,
were also cited. Furthermore, a problem with higher status/stronger personalities whose
views were given a disproportionately large amount of time was also identified.
It was suggested that the Nominal Group and Delphi techniques avoided many of
these pitfalls, with the former being the preferred method as it made provision for some
structured group interaction. The Delphi technique was favoured when, for logistical
reasons, a meeting could not be convened. Work by Baumann el al. (1972) suggests that,
to the ends of alerting a decision-maker to all the possible options involved and
highlighting areas of conflict as well as consensus, the Delphi technique can be
. particularly useful.
3.8. IS THE DEVELOPMENT OF LOW IMPACT ALTERNATIVES ENCOURAGED?
The value of EIA as a tool for project modification cannot be stressed too strongly. Its
success in this function may depend largely on the way in which any given EIA
methodology is applied to the project in hand. There are some methodologies, however,
which by their design, lend themselves to this function. The prime example of this is
McHarg (1969) where the whole purpose of the process is to create the low impact
alternative. Other techniques, such as the computer overlay of Krauskopf and Bunde
(1972), also have this capability. Sorensen (1971) may also qualify in this respect,
although more indirectly, by identifying impact networks and key areas of concern.
-------
M. A. Thompson
3.9. WHEN WEIGHTING IS PERFORMED ARE A NUMBER OF ITERATIONS USED?
145
Uncertainty as to the reliability of any weighting scheme can be overcome to some extent
by using a successive series of weights. These can be derived from any number of
reference publics or by the study team itself. Computer-based methodologies are
particularly suited to the manipulation of weights. The value of this process lies in the
way it reveals the emphasis placed by any particular weighting system by comparison
with other systems. Successive treatments may well define key areas of impact, which
emerge regardless of the weighting system used. The use of the technique is probably best
confined to that of an in-house tool, refining the study-team's insight into the trade-offs
involved. The methodology of Krauskopf and Bunde (1972) is computer-based,
allowing easy manipulation of weighting schemes. In this respect, it is similar to the
method developed and practiced by British Coal (Allett, 1986).
3.10. IS THE METHODOLOGY EASILY ADAPTED FOR USE ON ANY TYPE OF PROJECT?
Whilst it is acknowledged that a technique developed for a particular type of project may
be of value, as long as it is used in appropriate circumstances, the flexibility of a
methodology is itself an important asset. The ability to shape the assessment technique
to fit the unique situation at hand should increase the likelihood of a reliable report
being produced. The use of rigid methodologies, with predefined impact categories and
weighting schemes, where inappropriate, will distort the assessment and greatly reduce
its value.
00 3.11. IS PROGRESSION THROUGH THE STAGES OF ASSESSMENT EXPLICIT?
The importance of this criterion lies in the need for an assessment to be readily
intelligible to lay decision-makers and the public. If it proceeds via a number of clearly
defined steps, such as predictions of impact magnitude, followed by conversions to
impact significance and explanation of the choice of key trade-offs, then this goal is more
likely to be achieved. As applied to the 24 methodologies, this criterion excludes those
that were lacking in specific guidelines or those such as Leopold ei al. (1971) which
consist of only one stage.
3.12. ARE RESOURCES TARGETED TOWARDS REACHING A DECISION?
This criterion is essentially a combination of moderate resource needs and a clear
presentation of trade-offs. It implies that an on-going clarification of issues will be
achieved during the process, without incurring unnecessary costs.
3.13. ARE TRADE-OFFS PRESENTED CLEARLY?
This criterion highlights those methodologies which are likely to provide the decision-
maker with a clear series of choices between different areas of impact. It disqualifies both
those methodologies that proceed to presentation of a final score nnH those that progress
no further than a disaggregated presentation of data.
246 Determining Impicl significance In EIA
3.14. DOES THE METHODOLOGY CONTAIN A TECHNIQUE THAT, IN ITSELF, IS A USEFUL
ANALYTICAL TOOL?
It is important that the value of quantitative techniques to the EIA process is not
overlooked. Their role should, however, be confined to that of an in-house analytical
tool, applied only to the types of impact that lend themselves to a quantitative treatment.
Scaling procedures such as the function curves used to define environmental quality in
the Battelle methodology (Dee el al., 1973) and WRAM (Solomon el al., 1977) are of
value in this respect. Also noteworthy are the transparent impact map overlays to be
found in McHarg (1969), and the impact identification networks of Sorenson (1971).
3.15. RESOURCE NEEDS OF THE METHODOLOGY ARE UNLIKELY TO BE EXCESSIVE?
The methodologies that do not qualify in respect of this criterion are those which are
likely to incur high costs, either through the need for such high quality data or via
expensive public participation programmes.
3.16
Examination of Table I allows comparison of the performance of the 24 methodologies
against the IS evaluative criteria. The criteria can all be seen as positive aspects,
worthwhile goals for any assessment technique. The qualification of a methodology for a
particular criterion is indicated by a "X" in the appropriate cell of the table. It is thus
possible to give a broad outline of the attributes held by the methodologies within each
of the six groups.
It appears that the methodologies in group I consider impact significance explicitly,
perform a number of weighting operations where appropriate and progress explicitly .
towards a fully aggregated "final score" presentation. In most other criteria they fail to
score, although aspects of some would be useful components of a methodology for
which quantitative presentation of certain impacts was necessary.
Group 2 methodologies appear generally to be an improvement on those in group I,
They incorporate public opinion in some cases, which tempers the influence of the study
team, and favour semi-aggregation of impacts and a restricted use of quantification with
the emphasis on targeting resources towards the clarification of trade-offs.
PADC methodology (Clark et al., 1983) of group 3, scores highly, except that there is
no specific provision for public participation which, it is felt, is a major omission. The
methodology of Leopold el al. (1971) scores poorly, but was a forerunner of many
techniques and as such contributed to development of EIA procedure.
Group 5 and 6 methodologies are at fault in not presenting an explicit indication of
significance, relying instead on a composite value that is part impact magnitude and part
subjectively assigned importance. In general, they adapt well to many different types of
project and have lower resource needs than their counterparts in groups 1-4. Some of
group 6 aid the development of low impact alternatives, and McHarg (1969) scores
highly by virtue of its presentational qualities.
It would, however, be wrong to sum the number of Xs for each methodology in order
to determine a rank order. To do so would effectively place an equal weight on each
criterion when such is not the case. Of the IS evaluative criteria, it is felt that several are
absolutely essential to the development of good EIA practice. Significance must be
considered discreet from impact magnitude; and there must be some input of public
opinion to regulate the influence of the study team. Development of low impact
-------
If!
r
ill
, -
is- ,
t
i^1
i ~f --
iS'
II! !ir
--- -
S!
alternate should te encouraged and1 res^^ E
tradc-ofls, • i - i - i i i
A number ofother points are worthy of consideration prior to the formulation of an
approach to any EIA.
3. 17. CLARIFICATION OF ASSESSMENT GOALS
A correct approach to EIA requires thorough forward planning. The aim of the study
must be clearly defined, based on an understanding of the exact nature of the decision to
be made. Project resources can then be directed towards a continual clarification of the
main issues involved and a sharpening of the judgement of the team responsible for the
study. Specific assessment techniques should be selected to perform appropriate tasks
and not used simply because they are suggested in any set of guidelines.
3.18. PRESENTATION OF DATA
Where both quantitative and qualitative data are presented, care should be taken that
the former are not given undue emphasis. The conversion of raw data by scaling,
ranking or rating, results in a loss of information that may be both of use and readily,
comprehensible to the decision-maker. If it is accepted that a semi-aggregated presenta- ~
tion of data under broad impact-type headings is of most use to a decision-maker, then; ;
complex data manipulations can be avoided. Qualitative impact descriptions, combined,
with quantitative data where appropriate, should suffice to indicate which project option? >
is favourable for any given impact type. It is then for the decision-maker to make the
necessary value-judgements.
The presentation techniques chosen should serve to highlight trade-offs. The use of
checklists, matrices, graphs, summary tables and transparent map overlays may all be of
value as long as their use is integral to the assessment, and not merely cosmetic. Such -
graphic presentation may be very persuasive and should be justified by the importance of u
the information it represents. :
3.19. THE STUDY-TEAM INFLUENCE
All decisions made by the study-team should be adequately documented if possible in the
main body of the report and not in appendices or additional volumes. Whilst the
attraction of separating details of the techniques employed is understood, it is necessary
that the decision-maker and any lay-readers have the reasons for any decision or line of
procedure readily to hand. If not, their understanding of the report will be incomplete.
The use of structured group decision-making techniques should be considered by the
study-team to ensure that a true consensus of views within the group is reached.
3.20. UNSUITABLE TECHNIQUES
It is recommended that the degree of quantification of impacts should be carefully
regulated, particularly in cases where only a few project alternatives exist, and a
relatively "coarse" assessment may be adequate to determine the standing of each
alternative with respect of any particular impact. Further refinements, which are
unnecessary to the decision, may prrve costly in time and money .n.J might only serve to
complicate the issue.
ltt"
31 •! '
lii in
!i a
-i
MS I Dtftn»lnt»t l»j«1 jJt_ fc"EIA
It is strongly recommended that methodologies which proceed through full aggrega-
tion of impacts lo a "final score", should not be used as an assessment technique, the
results of which are intended for use by the decision-maker. Such an approach would
remove the decision from those appointed or elected for that purpose and place it in the
hands of the study-team. There is, however, a strong case for using certain component
techniques from such methodologies as in-house tools for the clarification of certain
impacts.
Arbitrary weighting schemes that are the product of study-team preferences should
also be avoided. The impression gained from consultation with EIA practitioners is that
weighting of impacts is commonly performed, but most agreed that it is necessary to
confine this weighting to an in-house procedure. If a public consultation process is
operating, the basis of a weighting scheme not derived solely from expert opinion should
be readily to hand.
4. Future training and research
An awareness and understanding of the use of quantitative techniques is essential to the
production of good EIAs in the future. Appreciation of their merits, limitations and
most appropriate areas of application will hopefully serve to eliminate the use of
numbers for their own sake. In its place must come appropriate quantification, i.e.
quantification that is both reserved for impacts that lend themselves to such treatment
and that results in a clarification and not a clouding of the issues. Accordingly,
competence in the performing of impact prediction, scaling, weighting and aggregation
is essential for the analyst. This competence should, however, be accompanied by an
appreciation that the role of these techniques is best restricted to the in-house level.
A point worthy of strong emphasis, when training future EIA practitioners, is that
standard methodologies and techniques are, in every case, of secondary importance to
an appreciation of the unique nature of the project and its interaction with the
environment. Quantitative techniques should be seen as useful tools to aid the
evaluation and expression of this interaction. Otherwise, a pre-occupation with compre-
hensive assessment methodologies runs the risk of reducing the project's status to that of
a source of raw data with which to complete the various "boxes" of a methodology. =
Prediction, probability and risk analysis are areas in which improvements in
information and understanding would benefit the EIA process, by working towards
more reliable statements of impact magnitude.
Study could also usefully be made of current trends and practice in pub1ic_
consultation. Within the field of EIA, this study will determine the current state and =
highlight areas of deficiency. A study of related fields where information is gathered
from populations may provide a number of techniques which could be applied -
innovatively in EIA.
It is important that the products of any such research are effectively communicated.
Alerting the developers responsible for large projects to the benefits of public consul- :
tation is worthwhile, one of the main benefits being the avoidance of t.-itly and
protracted public inquiries.
The range of methods available to a study team for maximising the objectivity of
their output is also worthy of study. Useful options must exist in other fields, which
could be applied to the EIA process.
-------
M. A. Thompson
References
24»
ISO
Determining Impact significance In EIA
Adlcins. W. G.. and Burke D. Jr. (1974). Social. Economic and Environmental Factors In Highway Decision-
Making. Research Report 148, Texas A and M University College Station, Texas.
Allelt, E. J. (1986). Environmental impact assessment and decision analysis. Journal of Operational Research
Society 37. 901-910.
Baumann, N.. Ervin, O. and Reynolds, O. (1982). The policy Delphi and public involvement programs. Water
Resources Research 18,721-729.
Beanlands. G. E. and Duinker. P. N. (1983). An Ecological Framework of EIA In Canada. Institute for
Resource and Environmental Studies, Dalhousie Uni.
Bissell, R. (1978). Quantification, decision-making and environmental impact assesimenl in the U.K. Journal
of Environmental Management 7, 43-58.
Bissett, R. (1980). Methods of environmental impact assessment: recent trends and future prospects. Journal of
Environmental Management II, 27-43.
Clark, B. D.. Chapman, K., Bisset, R., Walhern, P. and Barrett, M. (1983). A Manual for the Assessment of
Major Development Proposals. PADC Aberdeen University. London: HMSO.
Council of the European Communilies(l985). Council Directive 85/337/EEC. Official Journal ofthi European
Communities.
Crawford, A. B. (1973). Impact Analysts Using Differentially Weighted Evaluation Criteria, in Multiple Criteria
Decision Making. Cochrane, J. L., and Zeleny, M. (eds). Columbia, SC: University of South Carolina
Press.
Dee. N., Drobny, N., Duke, K., Whimann, I., Fahringer, D. (1973). An evaluation lystem for water resources
planning. Handle Laboratory Water Resources Research 9,523-535.
Delbecq, A. L. and Van De Yen. A. H. (1974). The effectiveness of nominal, Delphi and interacting group
decision-making processes. Academy of Management Journal 17.
Dicker!, T. G. and Domeny, K. R. (eds). (1974). Environmental Impact Assessment: Guidelines and
Commentary. Berkeley, California.
Eliolt. M. L. (1981). Pulling the pieces together: amalgamation in EIA. EIA Review 2,11-38.
Environmental Impact Centre, Inc. (1973). A Methodology for Assessing the Environmental Impact of Water
Resources Development. PB-226 545. U.S. Dept. of the Interior, Bureau of Reclamation, Denver,
Colorado.
Environmental Resources Limited. (1981). Environmental Impact Assessment. Studies on Methodologies,
Scoping and Guidelines. Final Report for the Govt. of the Netherlands. London: ERL.
Environment Canada. (1974). An Environmental Assessment ofNanaimo Port Alternatives, Ottawa. Environ-
ment Canada.
Ertel, M. O. (1979). A survey research evaluation of citizen participation strategic*. Wafer Resources Research
IS. 757-763.
Fischer, D. W., and Davis, G. S. (1973). An approach to assessing environmental impacts. Journal of
Environmental Management I, 207-227.
Hill, M. (1966). A method for evaluating alternative plans: the goals-achievement matrix applied to
transportation plans. Ph.D. Dissertation, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA.
Hobbs, B. F.(I985). Choosing how to choose: comparing amalgamation methods for EIA. EIA RevIewS,3Q\~
319.
Hollick, M. (!98l).iThe role of quantitative decision-making methods in environmental impact assessment.
Journal of Environmental Management 12,65-78.
Kane, J., Verlinsky, I. and Thompson, W. (1973). A methodology Tor interactive resource simulation (KSIM).
Water Resources Research 9,65-79.
Keeney, R. L. and Robilliard, G. A. (1977). Assessing and evaluating environmental impact at proposed
nuclear power plant sites. Journal of Environmental Economies and Management 4,153-46.
Krauskopf, T. M. and Bunde, D. C. (1972). Evaluation of environmental impact through a computer
modelling process. In Environmental Impact Analysis—Philosophy and Methods, Dillon, R. and Goodale,
T. (eds), pp. 107-125. Madison Wl: University of Wisconsin Sea Grant Program, 107-125.
Leopold, L. R., Clark, F. A., Henshaw, B. R. and Balsey, J. R. (1971). A Procedure for Evaluating
Environmental Impact. U.S. Geological Survey Circular 64S.
Loran, B. (1975). Quantitative assessment of environmental impact. Journal of Environmental Systems S, 247-
256.
McAllister, D. M. (1980). Evaluation in Environmental Planning. Assessing Environmental, Social, Economic
and Political Tradeoffs. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Matthew, W. H. (1975). Objective and subjective judgements in environn^-'nl impact assessment. Environ-
mental Conservation 2,121-131.
McHarg, I. L. (1969). A Comprehensive Highway Route Selection Method, i -iil«p Nature, pp. 31-41.
New York: Doubleday.
Mullia-- v Task Force. (1972). Guidelines for Implementing Principles and Siaiiil:ii
-------
Mitigation measures are actions designed to minimize or to compensate for
undesirable impacts of a proposed activity. Furthermore, they are often the focal
pints for opposition and debate relative to projects. (Canter et. al 1991;
Attachment 4.H). Although the U.S. regulations implementing NEPA include
avoidance as a mitigation measure, many practioners make a distinction between
avdidanceas a mitigation measure and other types of mitigation [i.e., reducing
or eliminatingj'parts of'the proposed activity; repairing, rehabilitating, or restoring
the affected environment; instituting management practices over the life of a
project to reduce or eliminate the impact; or replacing or providing substitute
resources or environments (i.e. compensation) (Table 4.5-1)]. These categories
of mitigation are arranged in order of their desirability; compensation is the least
desirable approach.
Table 4.5-1. Categories of Mitigation. (Source: Adaptation of Council on
Environmental Quality Regulations, 40 CFR 1508.20)
•liiill r;
n iiiis; i >•'
ihi< Kill I!1!!1 |; if
fi^ii^ 11,11 fr| IIP: fii
lilt: 1111 "
Sfiiili;'i
1. Avoidance: Mitigation by not carrying out the proposed action or the unacceptable parts of the
, , i .1, ,.,. ,, , ,„,', ' propo»ed action. For example, if the only area available for a regional airport happens
to be an area of extensive wetlands that would be filled in by construction of the airport,
avoidance of the action might be the only reasonable way to protect those wetlands.
I''S ',I f^iilSt '*aljtl 'Sill-i'»I'i,W^Jj^JjJ Jgf.JiJIIjl i; "llljjl f,fl Ji ;• |!|j|i|;;.ii;- -,,ijii,,.;,, „, .r^ _ ,,,,,, ,(ll; „ ||r| IM, , | |
2. Minimization: Mitigation by scding^own the magnitude of a project, reorienting the layout of the
project, or employing technology that reduces the factors generating the undesirable
environmental impact. For example, the treatment capacity of a wastewater treatment
plant discharging to a river might be reduced or it might be required to use advanced
" water treatment techniques.
Mitigation through the restoration of environments affected by the action. For example,
., jii.,:,! , areas cleared for the installation of pipelines or power lines can be regraded and then
replanted with native vegetation.
Mitigation by taking maintenance steps during the course of the action. For example,
stormwater management systems can be designed to trap sediments from developed areas.
5. Compensation: Mitigation through the creation, enhancement or acquisition of environments similar to
::='•:; 'I'i'i;,": in:,:;::;::-, '.jiv •;•., "I-v^..'...;,;; those affected by an action. This step should only be considered after all steps above
•./li » i , n r ' , , have been completed. Xi a last resort, donation of land or money for a regional program
.sly i: *l I iJiAilfa:. ,,111111 f; I!',; >„ ,i :i' ;:', in1 is1 fij jraiii i me a „ ,„ .is, J ° r *
•'tii,:":,) :;i of habiut creation or enhancement could be considered.
h in i, '„,'!" 1 „!;''! ,v, :'ll,li"" mill niion,!, i nil a i .:iii|iiiii«ii,!ii:i s1" Ulnuii iriui'I I!"! '" n' "Ilu""!ll "!„; r .,
Mil II III 111 (111 III 1 ;,
I III I I I III III I III II IR-
3. Rectification:
4. Reduction:
-
iilia iK
'I.!, iliilllt.'!
1 '' J' »' \-iS^^ , K,s;ii5,.vlJ;\ .,
*For purposes of this document, the term Environmeni
Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) process.
will refer to the
•III
-------
Ideally, potential impacts of a proposed activity are identified early during
the initiation and scoping stages of a project and all reasonable means to avoid
and minimize impacts are incorporated into the alternatives that are being
considered. Compensation for the remaining impacts is a final stage of
mitigation.
If the acceptability of an alternative depends on fulfillment of certain
mitigation measures, then it is important to clearly specify and consider the
mitigation measure(s) in the analysis of alternatives and to ensure that any
mitigation measures are incorporated into the final decision on the proposed
activity. Records of decision in the United States must identify the mitigation
measures and the monitoring and enforcement programs that the agency has
committed to adopt. These commitments are legally enforceable when they are
included in permits, licenses or grants. However, other than monitoring for
conditions written into permits, licenses or grants, the EA laws of most countries,
(excepting the United States and The Netherlands) do not explicitly require post-
EA monitoring for the effectiveness of mitigation measures. Thus, there is
generally no motivation to confirm that mitigation measures identified during the
planning stages of a proposed activity and/or written into a decision document are
actually carried out.
NEEDS
• Effective mitigation planning based on the availability of
information for and understanding of the proposed activity, its
potential impacts, and the affected environment.
• Identification of realistic mitigation goals and measures.
Innovative approaches and attitudes should be encouraged in
solving problems and developing mitigation plans. The public may
provide acceptable ways of resolving local issues of concern
(Attachment 6. A).
• Identification of any local, regional, tribal, national or international
laws, regulations, or standards that may affect proposed mit= -ntion
measures. For instance, the U.S. Surface Mining Contri and
Reclamation Act has requirements which must be undertaken to
avoid, reduce or compensate for adverse impacts of mining
activities.
• Surveillance and legal and regulatory enforcement of mitigation
measures. Non-governmental organizations can play an important
role in overseeing the effectiveness of mitigation actions.
1.5.15-2
-------
I
Periodic evaluation of mitigation measures and subsequent
modification as appropriate (Chapter 6).
11 • ! •" « • " I
TOOLS
llilPli ', {'
I'll Ii, !, "" «|,
''lii1 Ijli IP"
,il" !|i:'""
IIMlL '
till IPI
. HI! ol'llllllJIUI "!>. BINIl
Checklists
For many major activities, the environmental issues and
potential environmental impacts are well known and there
are recognized common mitigation measures. Checklists,
either computerized or otherwise are a good way to screen
proposed activities for potential impacts and to identify
potential mitigation measures. The U.S. Army
Construction Engineering Research Laboratory
(Champaign, Illinois) operates an Environmental Impact
Computer System mat indicates, for various project
activities, fhe probability of impact occurrence, why the
activity was scored as it was, and ways to lessen or avoid
jhe impacts of the activity. The World Bank has recently
published (1991) an Environmental Assessment Sourcebook
that reviews the major issues and provides checklists of
potential negative impacts arid mitigating measures for 32
different development, urban, energy, and industry projects
ai i-,r -'"i :,
filiii'ii> i' *W1 'iiiiiir*'
*"' : '•* ' '"' '' '*'•• "(Attachment 2.B).
• "I"1!-1 III1'1'!*! >' illiilllli. i.'H ,'; Hill,; i,!(lt i,!! if,;; ;,; • (.Jin ; ,!';,;, .
' **':'" ^ilii"!111 iJIiii:1'!:,;11 ivsiHM^ k'i, 'viS! " ,>'*•.' "',
*,""„,Case Studies
'.i '••' iii'-S'i • •;,.!; < ;,i ,f;"(i;,,,!1
.. T f*,!'^'1'ii'l,!' '. '.i•:','»:;.
Review of EA documents for similar projects is a useful
way to identify potential impacts and associated mitigation
measures. Canter" etal. (1991) summarized the general
biological impact mitigation measures for wastewater
treatment projects, surface mining operations and highway
projects found in 18 environmental impact statements and
three project reports (Attachment 4.H). Certain impacts
were generic to nearly all major construction activities;
operational phase impacts were addressed less frequently.
The specifics of the mitigation measures varied in
accordance with the location and magnitude of the proposed
activity. Table 4.5-2 summarizes the predicted impacts arid
associated mitigation measures of these 21 studies. It is
not meant to be all inclusive but is included here as an
indication of some of the approaches to mitigation.
..:: : t:
-------
Table 4.5-2. Summary of Impacts and Mitigation Measures
for 21 Projects (Eight Wastewater Treatment Facilities, Five Surface
Mining Operations, and Eight Highway Construction Projects.
Adapted from Canter et. al. 1991).
Impact
Mitigation Measure
Lou or disturbance of vegetation
Diiruption or lot* of wildlife (including
habitat and nesting areas)
Erosion and sedimentation
Potential introduction of toxic substances
into soil or surface water
Limit/zone areas to be cleared; Conserve topsoil; Revegetation
program; Management of reclaimed lands; No use of herbicides or
defoliants
Consult wildlife agencies; Minimize habitat disturbances; Avoid
sensitive areas; Replacement of affected areas (e.g., nesting area);
Creation of aquatic habitat (ponds); Enhancement of habitat; Plan
activities around critical periods for wildlife (e.g., migration,
spawning); Management program; Bus transportation to work site
Schedule activity during dry months; Buffer zones along streams;
Limit area disturbed at any one time; Avoid stream crossing by
boring beneath or bridging across; Temporary cover crops prior to
revegetation; Use of silting basins, traps; Keep excavation
materials away from streams; Slope contouring; rip-rap on bridges
and approach slopes; Stream reconstruction
Control rate of application to acceptable amounts; Dike treatment
works, storage tanks, etc.
Design specifications
During initiation, mitigation measures applicable to design,
construction, operation, and abandonment should be
defined and subsequently incorporated into final design
documents (e.g., best engineering practices: pr ~tices
specified by state and local requirements for const; '.ion
such as erosion control; American Society for Testing ^nd
Materials Standards). Consultation among project
managers, engineers, and environmental staff helps bnng
about clear direction on mitigation through planting,
design, project phasing, construction techniques and
scheduling. Some measures must be individually adapted
to specific project situations, others can be drawn from
reliable resource documents with acceptable mitigative
1.5.15-4
-------
ill ill
I 'I I"
"I i! £..im*:
measures (e.g., Forest Service Management Plans).
Individual or innovative measures should be field tested to
verify their adequacy under a range of conditions prior to
wide-spread use.
Once mitigative measures have been incorporated into
project planning and design, the remaining potential
impacts are evaluated during the analysis of alternatives.
The remaining (residual) impacts resulting from the project-
environment interactions will consist of those which were
reduced but not eliminated by mitigative measures and
those for which mitigative measures were not necessary,
not possible or not implemented. Residual impact analysis
can also identify the persistence and duration of any
impacts that may extend beyond the life of the project,
including permanent environmental alterations.
Expert judgment '
The value of expert judgment in the choice and design of
mitigation measures (and to the EA process; Part 4.3) lies
in me ability of the professional to: sort through irrelevant
information to get to the root issue; reach solutions using
incomplete data; make finer categorical distinctions than
non-experts; and perceive recurring patterns in a problem
aid to associate solutions to the patterns. This ability is
based on conceptual, analytical and experimental
;":":!: ^™^^So\j^dgje acquired through training and practice. The
..^ ^^^^^[•^^^Q^ t0 expert judgment in EA relate to the
*'^ ^^§Sality of expertise and the uncertainty inherent in the
judgment and reasoning of the expert. Moreover, there is
often a great diversity of opinion among experts on any
given environmental question (Nelson 1990). Nevertheless,
there are experts on mitigation who should be consulted on
practices such as revejgetation, wetland reclamation, and
erosion control.
ISSUES
Illll1
Mitigation strategies may require integrated planning and
negotiation to reduce conflicts with local views, needs, and
customs and local, state, tribal, and other federal agencies
(Attachment^.A).
1.5.15-5
-------
• Institutional arrangements for implementing and evaluating
mitigation measures must be defined, agreed to, and adequately
budgeted for at the time of decisionmaking. Mitigation, to be
meaningful, must be able to last over time thus the need for post-
project analysis and financial guaranties to ensure that if mitigation
does not succeed initially, as proposed, further efforts will be
made to achieve the objectives described in the decision document.
The selected alternative and its associated mitigation then become
the basis for the conditions of permits, contracts, and the detailed
design of the project.
• There are many approaches to identifying potential mitigation
measures for adverse biological impacts of proposed projects (e.g.,
checklists, computerized systems, case studies, professional
judgment). However, the information provided is mostly generic
and must be adapted to site-specific conditions; the methodologies
have not been used extensively as a part of the EA process; and
data are lacking on the effectiveness of the mitigation measures.
• The reasons given by Lee (1987) for lack of success in mitigation
for wetland loss are applicable to other situations as well. These
include:
inaccurate bounding/delineation of the predicted impact;
use of mitigation as a means to access the resource and/or
to assuage regulators;
inadequately developed or understood technical means to
achieve the mitigation objectives;
use of spatial and temporal scales for mitigation that are
inconsistent with site-specific impacts;
lack of project continuity; although goals are set and
planning is completed, projects are never begun, finished,
or monitored for success.
• Care must always be taken that a mitigation measure does not shift
a problem in one medium to another medium (e.g., air pollution
to waste disposal)
LINKAGES
Consideration of mitigation measures is linked to each element of the EA
process. During the early planning stages of initiation, determination of the need
for and development of mitigation measures starts with the proponent and
continues during scoping with input from the public and other agencies. During
1.5.15-6
-------
the assessment stage, mitigation measures are factored into the analysis of
alternatives. For decisionmaking. EA documentation should include the options
for mitigation of impacts for each of the alternatives if necessary. Throughout
implementation of the project (i.e., construction, operation, and abandonment),
post-decision analysis should evaluate the impacts and the effectiveness of
mitigation measures to allow for modification of the project or development of
addition mitigation measures in case of unpredicted impacts. A post-decision
analysis of mitigation measures provides feedback on the accuracy of impact
predictions and the effectiveness of the mitigation in order to transfer the
experience to future activities of the same type.
CES
ganter, L. W., J. M. Robertson, and R. M. "Westcott. 1991. Identification and
evaluation of biological impact mitigation measures. Journal of
Environmental Management 33:35-50.
11 in
in
Lee, L. C. 1987. Mitigation for wetland loss: how much is appropriate? In:
Environmental Impact Assessment, Proceedings of a Conference on the
Preparation and Review of Environmental Impact Statements (ed. N. A.
Robinson). New York State Bar Association, One Elk Street, Albany,
New York 122671 ™ "="1": '"'" ' """::: ™""'s = '" ri
in ill n in i i (•'',:, ", ii ir 'inr :,'"", »i MI; j ,,!iii,'iii ,"",,1, 'r } ,11,1, ,'i,i" sill,,! ,1,1"', i i I, i in
"ill,,",,,""'1, • , "i"! i, s "a ,- '::i""iii,,'
Nelson, R. W. 1990. Can experts agree on policy directions toward wetlands
and agriculture? The Environmental Professional 12:131-143.
World Bank. 1991. Environmental Assessment Sourcebook. Volumes 1^ II, HI.
The World Bank, Washington, D.C.
i HOI'
liSS"1 "
.I'liiiiin , win i
'..i''!"!)!;!! T'ijillli' i'liC
i "JliWulL ''1 l"il 1IIIT
, li'I' 'I!.'!!'" "i
1",:! r;
111 Jllllillli'' I'i li'''!!"1,,,!..)!::
'i!! ;i;,.i • / i'r * Jigi
(KH In , ,,"''! ' iiilli::!:,,!1
I fffV"] SI 'i If'
llPii'
"I"'" i" y|i|'!! " II1BI' "'' ' , !",! "
"11,1"' "''!'",:iiii|!i li'ilSI!' •:'•, " ;Y' ,'i'l
"ilil'i'l'i"!,! "„ ''' in":,,,"'!,!,!,:'!, . l,,',"illir i1 ,ii, ."I'fl'i :,,, ll,i:
'I','1,"!'!,:' , : T :,,,; "i!"""'1 'iilBii1:' „, ins '„',;'
1 l I,! i ' '.r i i',',"!,,,, ,:,„' "i,;, , ,|, ,"„';
i'ii, xj: "iiMi'iiii"' i'nlu
iiif'lliiiiJi:'11 ( ' p! ' i,1!' '•' ' :
itffi iV" ;l ;:::
li 'Xm '! '! i;>i :&; : K:«U; &%'&& •• i"^;?;, ii ^
ll'i! illlliiiii! i •••!,: " „,'• .: , IlliPl', , ","|iii ,i;,'i >;fi, ugui,, •„ • imJ-.iV "!l!, I i ","- . i ) "„',„, fl
l rill i'li:.''•'!"; .< . «•;- . • •• i. i,,,,1 s- i 'WI,M-I\\ 'ii1,!!;,1";' ;,;', "t
'''''""'I'1'! 'li'illi'1 Hi'i !,":',;, , " 'mi'ill111 ' ".'I1'1: ' ii''1!'
"'' '"I"! i,,, ',, 'I!",,,,,I'" III I i'i,!1, „'!,', ,'
:" I'-', ' i'ff,."-',' ; I"" '',;'"'' '-I;1
' ' ''.M:!™1!1'" 'J, i'n' " ' '. lii!''", I"'11,.',' ,'
I. i i;1,:,.""i .vi;.',,, r .i..1 i1!, "' :;i#' Ki '.,. *' i!
. ,,;'!i: !, W
n
"!i"'' i*
^""i'iS
S\ ill
;;,;; ..... '•I'll*',
i' il'iii'ii I ''.iil'lillii'i1';"!,;:1:'1:!,, ,• f'-jm
"III'''!''!:!",:.''!!!" '"i ........... ,i ...... : , i!"!, '
i-;f ' '(' - !'• i1','*"! ;,,,iirillf' I,;' ,
• ", , ''•:''' :•> :""il lllii:
'I ,:;• I'";*"! i!! ',,11! iTT. '!••' 11
, , 'I': ?"J'll!Ill" ;',!! "
-------
1.5.15-8
-------
•Ill il !||ii '111, 'IM'T: iljji liijiiillfi Mill i >ri,,, ,'4 ! '. :'/- ,,,'' |, i'T lit; , "V.i1 ', „,' ILI'in " J''r, " V ',,,! ft ;' 'f]'f>^ I'J, ,i :; 'illiiiliiW'V'.iilri'* ' ilJr,'! Iilin :!;. ill!!1: „,.!"„ ' lin'SIPW111,''. .JfV.'Jr'.ll ["'if l^l'lililL 'W'-'lll1'1 ':! !- 'I'*!
I!! linn1!"!!' i K.I:: .•
iiF! if nil, .',:"'" irn < i 'iiiiy
...... if ; ..... • '*<»";< e r
MEASURES
-': "> ''•'•'-" '•'< •''"'3""-. 3 T !:;•!'!*:': ^ « '"f ii :' • ' ; i, :' &w •.', i : jii- ;^/jj „: a;m •; • j ,|;•. ,;,:,.f
Canter, L. W.V L M! Robertson, and R. M. Westeott: 1991. IdeMflcalbn and
evaluation of biological impact mitigation measures. Journal of Environmental
Management 33:35-50.
M! !!!' .f'l'lliii;, I
IH llffllir i i if1!!'. i '• •, illii! I* '" I,, ;j"., ,'M 111!, i.llill t i, !'•!":,'I t';,;"« > :J' :i' , >t
in iHii" 1L!"":11:,:)1!1 "i" - mi't" .< 'a •', •„, '1*1;!: i'iisiiiii •,•' '
|i;i:i1!i:;;i! i 'lili.,:;;*:!!: „ ''„„;!, • Ri', /,' • ' •.' .illl-l'1; i BH'v' ' , 'i
":;; !,«r' r.pj*r^;"N \w. ^ii:^:
; ,||: «", ,„>' Ji1.*,!: 'V:i!l >:'. ,!.
1.5.15-9
11 111
-------
1.5.15-10
-------
ii
1 '«(
v»
(U>
I
i ':
' Identification and Evaluation of Biological
Impact Mitigation Measures
f
L. W. CANTER, J.M. ROBERTSON AND R. M. WESTCOTT
= Wentlficatlon «nd Ev*fu»Hon of Biologlcallmpact MlffgaHon i =
= Measures i !
: i -- ; =: !
L. W. Canter,* J. M. RotxrUonf and R. M. Wesfcollj* I j =
' i • _
. * Environmental and Ground Water Institute University of Oklahoma, Norman, i
Oklahoma, U.S.A. and ^University of Oklahoma. Norman, Oklahoma, U.S.A. f
Received 26 February 1990
Identification and evaluilion of mitigation measures Tor adverse biological
impacts of proposed projects are often the focal points for opposition and
debate relative to the projects. This paper delineates several positive approaches
for both identifying and evaluating potential mitigation measures. Identification
approaches include the review of utilized measures for similar projects,
.. computer-based literature and information searches, and the use of
'? .'. computer-generated checklists of potential measures. Utilized measures for eight
1 '• waslewater treatment projects, five surface mining operations and eight highway
; jj;, .projects are described. Evaluation approaches include posl-EIS environmental
'£ :i monitoring, pre-project qualitative evaluation based on case studies, and
-- J" pre-project quantitative evaluation using structured habitat-based methods.
Based upon this review, it has been determined that there are an ample number
"f ;: of approaches which can be used to identify potential mitigation measures lor
j the adverse biological impacts of proposed projects. However, while systematic
l\ methodologies are available for evaluating the potential effectiveness of
mitigation measures, these methodologies have not been used extensively as a
i •; part of the EIS process. Additional attention needs to be given to the
: v :> incorporation of mitigation evaluation schemes in pre-project environmental
impact studies.
a Keywords: environmental impact, monitoring, wastewater, mining, highway
projects
1. Introduction
Reprinted from the
Journal of Environmental Management
Vol. 33, No. I, pp. 35 50
July 1991
Planning and implementation of appropriate mitigation measures for adverse biological
impacts represent important activities in the environmental impact assessment process.
Actual mitigation measures may encompass several techniques. For example, the
Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) in the United States has indicated that impact
mitigation should include the sequential consideration of the following (Council on
Environmental Quality, 1978): (I) avoiding the impact altogether by nut taking a certain
action or parts of an action; (2) minimizing impacts by limiting the degree or magnitude
of the action and its implementation; (3) rectifying the impact by repairing, rehabilitat-
ing or restoring the affected environment; (4) reducing or eliminating the impact over
I 35
_ 0301-4797/91/050035+16103.00/0 © 1991 Academic Preii Limited
-------
36
Dlologkil Impict mlll|*llofl mcumti
K>
time by preservation and maintenance operations during the lire or the action; and (S)
compensating Tor the impact by replacing or providing substitute resources or environ-
ments.
Sequential consideration suggests that the more easily implemented techniques
should be selected first, for example, avoiding impacts or minimizing impacts. Compen-
sation would only be considered if other techniques do not completely satisfy the
mitigation needs. It should also be noted that the techniques are not mutually exclusive,
that is, several might be used in combination in an overall mitigation plan for a given
project.
The purpose of this paper is to document several approaches which can be used to
identify both potential biological impact mitigation measures and evaluate their
potential effectiveness prior to and following implementation. The paper will begin with
background information on the institutional requirements for mitigation; this will be
followed by the delineation of several approaches for the identification and evaluation of
specific mitigation measures.
2. Institutional requirements for mitigation
The generic legislation within the United States which calls for biological impact
mitigation is the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) of 1969 (PL 91-190).
Procedures for implementing the environmental impact statement (EIS) requirements of
NEPA have been developed by the CEQ. Agencies within the United States are required
to prepare records of decisions (RODs) on projects having EISs. The RODs must state
what the decision was and identify all alternatives considered by the agency in reaching
its decision, specifying the alternative or alternatives which were considered to be
environmentally preferable (Council on Environmental Quality, 1978). In addition, the
RODs shall slate whether all practicable means to avoid or minimize environmental
harm from the alternative selected have been adopted, and if not, why they were not. A
monitoring and enforcement program shall be adopted and summarized where appli-
cable for any mitigation program.
Several specific environmental quality and natural resources protection laws have
been adopted within the United States. These laws typically include policies and
implementation requirements for biological impact mitigation measures. Table I
includes an example listing of some of these laws. Two notable laws in addition to NEPA
are (he Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act (SMCRA) which delineates
mitigation requirements directed toward restoring habitat disturbed by surface mining
operations; and the Endangered Species Act (ESA) which addresses requirements for the
protection of habitat for threatened or endangered plant or animal species.
3. Identification of mitigation measure*
Systematic approaches can be used to identify potential mitigation measures for the
adverse biological impacts of proposed projects. A complete review of all approaches is
beyond the scope of this paper; however, three examples will be presented: (I) review of
utilized measures for similar projects; (2) use of specific literature-based information on
appropriate measures for reducing particular adverse impacts; and (3) use of a
computer-generated checl-M«i of potential mitigation measures. The review of EISs and
'"{dance documents can < 'istful in gaining insight into mitigation requirements and
•lices. To illustrate lh usefulness, examples for United States projects r ' Te
L. W. Cinlcr tl *l.
TABLE I. Example listing of United Stales laws which may directly or indirectly address biological
impact mitigation measures
Anadromous Fish Conservation Act
Bald Eagle Protection Act
Clean Air Act
Clean Water Act
Coastal Zone Management Act
Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation ;md Liability Act (Supcrfund)
Endangered Species Act
Federal Insecticide, Fungicide and Rodenticide Act
Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act
Golden Eagle Protection Act
Marine Mammal Protection Act
Marine Protection, Research and Sanctuaries Act
Migratory Bird Conservation Act
National Environmental Policy Act
Resource Conservation and Recovery Act
Superfund Amendments and Reauthorizalion Act
Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act
Toxic Substances Control Act
Wild and Scenic Rivers Act
Wild Horses and Burros Protection Act
categories—wastewater treatment facilities, surface mining operations and highway
projects—will be presented.
3.1. UTILIZED MITIGATION MEASURES FOR WASTEWATER TREATMENT PROJECTS
Development and implementation of wastewater treatment systems are presumed to tic
beneficial to the physical-chemical and biological environments in that the pollution:)!
components of wastewater discharges are minimized. While this is generally true, there
may be many adverse impacts associated with wastewater treatment facilities, including
those that occur to the biological environment. Table 2 contains a summary of the
general biological impact mitigation measures identified in eight EISs. Four major
biological impacts were associated with the construction phases of the facilities.
including two direct impacts (loss of vegetation and disruption of wildlife) ami two
indirect impacts (erosion and sedimentation, and destruction of streams and degluti-
tion of water quality). The most frequently used mitigation measure was a revcgclaijnn
program. Operational phase impacts were less frequently addressed and include only
two issues: (I) problems from land application of wastewater; and (2) eulrophicaiion
from nutrient additions or accidental discharges.
Construction phase erosion represents one of the major impacts of concern for
waslewater treatment plants. Basic information necessary for es'; -'ling erosion in-
-------
Ul
t—»
OJ
TA.U 2. Summary of biological iwpiet
for eJffct wistewater treatment
ficililies i
Wutewiter treatment fict'Hlyt
Impact
Construction phase)
Loss of vegetation
Mitigation measure
Disruption of
wildlife
Erosion and
sedimentation
Destruction of
streams and
degradation of
water quality
Revegelation pro-
gramme
Reduced destruction
by zoning construction
areas
No use of herbicides
or defoliants
Plan activities around
critical periods for
wildlife
Minimize habitat dis-
turbance
Plan activities during
dry months
Use temporary cover
crops or immediate re-
vegetation
Use silt basin and
structures to catch silt
in runoff
Accomplish stream
crossings by boring
beneath or bridging
across
Keep excavation
materials away from
stream
Operational phase
Land application
of waslcwater to
vegetated areas
Control rale of appli-
cation to acceptable
amounts
Hutrophicalion " Use non-phosphate de-
and/or degradation tergents
of water quality
Enclose major treat-
ment works with dikes i
Spring,.
Env.ronr,,
: (4) Be..
EnS^menUl Protection Agency. 1979); (5)
a. Oklahoma (U.S. Environ-
...n.l,nn.r« miM»nnn n,r»,mf
eludes selected soil properties such «s erosion potential, soil suitability for various (anil
uses and geographical distribution. This information can be procured from several m
! sources, including a computer data base called SOILS; this data base is part of the I
: Environmental Technical Information System of the U.S. Army Construction Engineer- *
\ ing Research Laboratory (U.S. Army Construction Engineering Research Laboratory, i
I 1988). The information in soils is from the data collection program of the U.S. Soil »
• Conservation Service, J
! Commonly used erosion mitigation measures include planning construction during j
, drier months so that there is less potential for the impact, and revegetalion involving _
! seeding or replanting the area as soon as possible. Physical measures involve the building i
of dikes, diversions and stabilizing structures. Table 3 addresses erosion and seditnen- j
talion impacts and mitigation measures as related to waslewater treatment facilities; =•
included are some alternative revegetation enhancement methods (FilzPatrick el til., ;
1977). There are ample mitigation measures which can be used to minimize the;
detrimental biological impacts which might occur as a result of erosion during the 5
• construction phase for wastewater treatment facilities. ?
3.2. UTILIZED MITIGATION MEASURES FOR SURFACE MINING OPERATIONS ''•
Surface mining activities may cause numerous undesirable impacts on the biological $
, environment. The key law related to mitigation measures for surface mining operations ^
TABLE 3. Mitigation measures for erosion during waslewater treatment facility construction
(FitzPatrick el a/., 1977) ~
Plan development based on drainage patterns, topography and soils of site. ;
Avoid removal of trees and surface vegetation wherever feasible.
Minimize exposed land area and duration of exposure. ' ^
Divert runoff around exposed areas to stabilize outlets.
I Provide temporary cover on areas of critical erosion hazards, and establish permanent cover as 4
1 soon as possible. |
Construct impoundments to trap sediment and reduce runoff peaks before flow leaves the J
; construction areas. j
r- Fording streams should be carried out by bridging, sheeting, using conveying equipment. or^_
constructing a stabilized roadbed into and through the stream. a
Control soil by revegetation and mulching bare slopes (netting over mulch may increase
effectiveness of mulching). Examples of revegelation enhancement methods include: ^
(a) Grading of spoil areas; if revegelation must be delayed, cover area with tarpaulin, jj
burlap or mulch. J
(b) Dikes and ditches to control runoff. ;
(c) Development of adequate fertility of denuded soil (treated wastewaler is good for ?
! vegetation growth). '
(d) Shallow tillage of area immediately prior to seeding. j
I (e) Seed mixture containing fast and slow growing species. |
! (0 Mulching area which has been seeded or planted. Jj^ (
-------
Biological Impicl mitigation m
40
is the SMCRA of 1977. Section SOI(b) of SMCRA requires that a permanent regulatory
program be implemented, and the regulatory program which has been developed
contains requirements which must be undertaken as a part of mining activities. These
requirements may be considered as mitigation measures in that they avoid, reduce or
TABLE 4. Summary of biological mitigation measures suggested by the regulatory program as
mandated by Section 50l(b) in SMCRA (U.S. Department of Interior, 1979)
L. W. Canter ti •(.
Biological impact
Possible mitigation measures/requirements of regulatory
program
Loss of wildlife
and wildlife habitat
Disturbance of aquatic
organisms and aquatic
habitats
Erosion and sedimentation
Destruction of
vegetation
A wildlife protection plan is required 89 part of mining permit
application
Wildlife agencies will be consulted
Timing, shaping and sizing operations will be conducted to
avoid breeding or nesting season ind trees, protecting key food,
cover and water resources
Fencing will keep large mammals from direct contact with toxic
chemicals in sedimentation ponds and from roadways to reduce
number of roadkills
Revegetation will use species with high nutritional or cover
value
Topsoil handling and replacement prior to revegetallon will be
conducive to wildlife
Topsoil storage will be covered with vegetation, thus providing
cover for wildlife
A 30 m buffer zone on each side of streams will be undisturbed
implementation of a regulatory program designed for re-
storation, protection, enhancement and maintenance of aquatic
life
Casing and sealing of surface and underground mine openings
to prevent escape of acid and toxic discharge
Buffer strips be left between mining operations and waterways
Restoration of all streams to include alternating patterns of
riffles, pools and drops
All diversions will be removed
Surface runoff will be collected in sediment ponds
Disturbed soils will be revegetated
Affected land must be restored to pre-mining productive capa-
city
Topsoil must be removed, segregated, stored and redistributed
with minimum loss or contamination
Topsoil and subsoil may be removed separately and replaced in
sequence
Fslablish native vegetation or appropriate substitutes after
mining
Agricultural lands must be returned to the same or greater.
productive capacity as prc-mining conditions.
TABLE S. JSummary of biological impact mitigation measures for five surfaclMming opcniti»hs
Impact
Mitigation measure
Surface mining operation!
I 2 3 4 S
Destruction of vegetation
Disturbance of wildlife
Erosion and
sedimentation; and
destruction of
streams and
aquatic organisms
Revegetalion programme
Limiting areas to be cleared
Management of reclaimed
lands
Enhancement of habitat
Creation of ponds
Management program
Transportation to work site-
reduce road kills
30 m buffer zone
on each side of stream
Use of sedimentation ponds
Temporary crops prior to
revegetalion
Scheduling operations during
dry periods or around spawn-
ing seasons
Stream reconstruction
Slope contouring
+ +
+ + 4 + f
+ +
+
+
fThe surface mining operations are in: (!) Rusk County. Teas: {U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.
19830); (2) Deioto Parish, Louisiana (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. I9H.V), (3) Mercer Count).
North Dakolt (U.S. Department of Energy, 1980); (4) Campell County, Wyoming (U.S. Department of the
Interior, 1980); and (5) Robertson County, Texas (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, I982r).
t Plus lign denote* mitigation measure mentioned in the EIS for the operation.
compensate Tor adverse impacts. A summary of some mitigation measures which relnlc
to biological systems or biological impacts is presented in Table 4 (U.S. Department of
the Interior, 1979).
In order to determine which impacts are actually being identified, am! what
mitigation measures are being suggested to offset these impacts in actual practice, live
EISs which include mining activities were reviewed. Table 5 contains a summary of the
identified impacts and general mitigation measures for implementation. The most
commonly used mitigation measures were the development of a revegetalion program
and enhancing the habitat Tor wildlife. All five of the EISs reunified implemented some
measures which fit these categories, though the specifics varied in accordance with Ihc
needs created by the mining activities.
3.3. UTILIZED MITIGATION MEASURES FOR HIGHWAY PROJECTS
Many sensitive areas are traversed by highways. These include: we'' 's; alpine areas;
deserts; and areas that are habitats Tor endangered species. Mitig >rocediircs f<>r
-------
jfW":'" ; '
^^"=3-
^** si* = 5
EJ=J*. . " - -
= sfc } ; s_ .
aw
'I!
ir,
!i«ll IB
urn
i
pi
tjS\
»,»
i
UT
« .-'".•:. , : T^-S; •-. 7 =
IN = i I M ||| j. | = s ^ __ 5 - ,_" "= -1 s ^r 7- i ; = ,
Ithesi sensitive areas; ma5|iincUide! replacementibfj rwbltat size for size, selection of j
alternate route(s), or complete abandonment of the project (U.S. Department of ;
Transporation, 1975). In order to investigate mitigation measures being addressed in
s highway projects, five EISs and three project reports were reviewed. Table 6 provides a ,
<| comparison of (he types of impacts versus the mitigation procedure used for the eight ^
•' projects. Certain impacts are associated with nearly all highway construction activities, j
•: including toss of vegetation, erosion and sedimentation, loss of habitat and loss of
: wildlife. j
; Proper revegetation and reforestation is essential to alleviate vegetation loss and also
'••- the erosion and sedimentation related to vegetation loss. Erosion control devices vary ;
*; from project-to-project depending on variables such as topography, soil type and
: rainfall. In most cases, revegetation is best accomplished using native species. Fertilizers i
. may be useful but care should be taken so that excessive amounts are not used; excessive
* use can cause reduced water quality and stream eutrophication. In some wetland
situations, important considerations may involve dredging or filling operations and the
;; possibility of dredging toxic substances. Testing prior to moving the dredged material is
'; a very important aspect which is required by current legislation and regulations. If a
i dredged material is found to be toxic, it should be placed upland in a secure landfill. '
M
1 3.4. SPECIFIC LITERATURE-BASED INFORMATION
A;
Usage of computer-based bibliographic retrieval systems can be an effective approach
for identifying potential mitigation measures for biological impacts. These systems
provide a fast, efficient means of conducting literature searches that produce lists of titles'
and abstracts of published materials relative to specifically identified topics. There are
several commercial companies that provide access to traditional systems such as the
National Technical Information Service, Air Pollution Technical Information Center,
Water Resources Abstracts, Biosis Previews, Compendex, Pollution Abstracts, Agri-
cola. Smithsonian Scientific Information Exchange and Enviroline.
One example of the usage of a computer-based literature search will be cited. Water
resources projects involving the construction of dams and creation of surface water
reservoirs may cause certain environmental health impacts via vector-borne diseases.
Several mitigation measures are available for controlling vector-borne diseases, and
Table 7 provides a summary identified via a literature search (PEEM Secretariat, 1983).
Mitigation measures can be considered in terms of environmental modification or
manipulation, or modification or manipulation of human habitation or behavior. These
measures were identified as a part of developed guidelines for addressing the biological
impacts of water resources projects (PEEM Secretarht, 1983).
Some specific data bases have direct applicability for identifying mitigation
measures. For example, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service has developed an Endangered
Species Information System (HS1S) for storage and retrieval of information on nation-
ally listed threatened or endangered plants or animals (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Services,
1988). Records for 435 species were available as of mid-1988, and additional records are
still being added. Mitigation-retain) information in ESIS include reasons for the species'
preser^ulus, actions recommenced for the species' recovery and habitat requirements.
Usa^^KSIS, and the 66 data items of information for each species record, would
• systematic identification of potential mitigation measures for threatened «T
»» -nim.il cncrii"<; in a nroiect study area.
:-.-= fs «
r = -S- - -f - '
if aJ
;«WT 11. r
TAUB& Co
" ! = t * ,
i metswes used i« efgbfMghway constm. ~ afeeu
Impact
Mitigation measure
Loss of Revegelation
vegetation programme
Lou of habitat Replacement of afltcted
and nesting areas areas
Creation of aquatic
habitats
Plant green-tree
reservoir
Loss of wetlands Replacement of affected
areas
Excavations designed to
produce wetland
habitats (proper water
depths)
Planning so route will
not affect nesting or
other sensitive areas
Replacement of nesting
areas and other sensitive
areas
Revegelation and
reforestation including
sodding, sprigging and
. fertilizing
Construction of silting
basins and traps
Rip-rap on bridges and
approach slopes
Limit amount of soil
disturbed at any one
lime
Possible Test all fill material
introduction of- placed into surface
toxic substances waters for toxic
of fill materials substances
into surface
waters
Effects on
endangered
species
Erosion and
sedimentation
Highway cowtroction projectf
234567
+ +
+ + + .
+ -HS !?
t The highway construction projects arc in: (I) five separate locations (Schuldincr ri al., 1979); (2) Monicrcy
County, California and Interstate 10 in Florida (U.S. Department or Transportation. 1975); (3) Tennessee
State Route 29. North Dakota 1-94. New Mexico MO. Georgia 1-95. Colorado MO. West Virginia 48, Oregon.:
numerous projects, (Desjardins, 1979); (4) Oklahoma City. Oklahoma, Stl-74 (U.S. Department of Transpur-i
lalion, 1985); (5) Woodward County, Oklahoma, SIMS (U.S. Department of TransQJIh|ion. l9R8a): ff>),
Virginia-Maryland, District of Columbia, George Washington Memorial Parkway ^^•Nalional Park:
Service, I98S); (7) Mays County Oklahoma, SII-J3 (U.S. Department of Transportation^^); and (8) Tuba!
f "*" * •* I nr»n» :
-------
Blotof Icil Impict mlll|illon musnd
L. W. Cinlcr n tl.
O)
»—*
ON
i
BSS
*ff
•g o
3 O
5
•I
Vect
ime
fuiinoi
uojiniiiaj «n pur]
(nodiip put
lisupjq put f U;UM»S
pu» X|ddni MUM
uoininlal Xliuins
«o|it|9t>A Mitnby
luiqing MJ lurants
UOIIttllMlU |)A9| J»I»M
|uti|uni o|
iiniodn) 10 f uipiqs
UOUI|j|3«|tUIUlJ>IJO
luiumq put IUUIJ0
lUMupunodui)
fulfill pur|
iiijHjj pus tuju
(udXt ||l) sliuitio
•f t I
+ I I
+ I I
+ I +
•«• 4-
•f -H-
•asa;
SAC
85-g.
If
«u
. : i .
a a
» a.
.£
3.5. COMPUTER-BASED CHECKLIST
The final example for identifying potential mitigation measures involves the use of a
computerized system called the Environmental Impact Computer System (EICS). The
U.S. Army Construction Engineering Research Laboratory in Champaign, Illinois,
U.S.A., operates EICS (U.S. Army Construction Engineering Research Laboratory.
1981). The EICS includes eight areas of project activities called functional areas, and the
"environment" includes 13 categories called technical specialties. The specialties arc
further disaggregated into basic attributes or indicators. The project activities are then
compared to the attributes in each technical specially, and the system indicates the
probability of impact occurrence, rather than the potential magnitude of the impact.
( Keyed to the activity are ramification and mitigation statements. Ramification remarks
explain why the activities were scored as they were. The mitigation statements describe
ways to lessen or avoid the impact of that activity (U.S. Army Construction Engineering
Research Laboratory, 1981).
An early activity in any environmental impact study could include the use of EICS
for a preliminary identification of potential impacts, and the assemblage of pertinent
generic information on the ramifications and mitigation measures for those potential
impacts. The functional areas include: construction; mission change; operation, main-
tenance, and repair; training; industrial; procurement; research development, testing,
and evaluation; and real estate. The 13 technical specialties include ecology, health and
safety, air quality, surface water, ground water, sociology, energy and resources,
economics, earth science, land use, noise, transportation, and aesthetics. To serve as an
example of the types of mitigation measures which can be identified with EICS, Table 8
summarizes a portion of the key ramifications and mitigations for the impacts from
construction on ecology. This information can be used to develop preliminary plans Tor
impact mitigation programs. '<-
4. Evaluation of mitigation measures
An issue which is often not addressed in an environmental impact study is the evaluation
of the potential or actual effectiveness of planned or previously implemented mitigation
measures. Systematic evaluations of proposed measures are becoming increasingly
important due to the costs of such measures, cost-sharing requirements for water
resources development projects and the growing usage of the concept of incremental
justification of mitigation measures in an overall mitigation program. This section will
highlight three examples of evaluation approaches: (I) post-project monitoring; (2) pre-
project qualitative evaluation; and (3) pre-project quantitative evaluation.
4.1. POST-EIS MONITORING
The CEQ regulations do not specifically address Ihe evaluation of mitigation measures
except in the context of follow-up monitoring to ensure that planned measures arc
implemented and working (Council on Environmental Quality, 1978). Specifically,
paragraph IS05.3 in the regulations states (Council on Environmental Quality, 1978):
"Agencies may provide for monitoring to assure that their decisions arc carried out and should
• do so in imporlanl cases. Mitigation and other conditions established in the FAS or during its
review and committed lo as part of Ihe decision shall be implemented by the lead agency <»r
other appropriate consenting agency. The lead agency shall: (u) include appreciate condiiio^s
in grants, permits or other approvals; (b) condition funding of actions on 'on; (c) upmn
-------
ill«P;
t:;;
r*=SS*ii, ~" ~= i
J,; -,-.
1 J";
J
I!
- mKf&tfl WWWfi'WWI .
TA*U 8, Sommtry-of'^pottimtt of the ecology impact ramitatloiw frowcomlruclfcMij and
miiigalion mcasutcj »s obtained from ibe environmental impact computer system (U.S. Amy
Construction Engineering Research Laboratory. 1911)
EICS code
number
1060
Selected ramifications and mitigations
1061
1064
sr:As-
:-V'.:
Ramifications
Establishment of the support facilities for i major construction project often ;
disturbs vegetation and wildlife Tor a wide area around the site itself,
especially if not regulated. |
Mitigations
Limit spread of support facilities by contract provisions and/or temporary :
fencing, especially if adjacent areas contain trees or other vegetation which is
to be retained.
Ramifications
Construction of temporary access roads may represent the first major .
intrusion into a remote building site. Numerous superfluous roads may cause ;
more terrain damage than the project itself.
Mitigations
Plan access roads carefully; improve them if necessary; then restrict develop-
ment of all other roads and paths.
Ramifications
Vehicle fueling and servicing areas, especially temporary ones, may lack
precautions against disposal of petroleum wastes on the soil surface or In
drainage ways where it then damages aquatic life.
Mitigations
Require that fuel and oil storage be diked and that drain oil be removed
from the site in closed containers and disposed of properly, preferably by sale
to reclaimers.
t Thii is an example only;« number of additional EICS code numbers have been omitted.
request, inform cooperating or commenting agencies on progress in carrying out mitigation
measures which they have proposed and which were adopted by the agency making the _
decision; and (d) upon request, make available to the public the results of relevant
monitoring."
Planning and implementation of a post-EIS environmental monitoring program for ~
a project typically involves a number of activities. Detailed information on these
activities is beyond the scope of this paper; such information is available elsewhere
(Canter and Fairchild, 1986). While details will not be provided herein, the use of such
monitoring data to evaluate the effectiveness of mitigation measures is obvious.
4.2. PRE-PROJECT QUALITATIVE EVALUATION
Systematic evaluation of potential mitigation measures for biological impacts should be •
acco^Bked as a part of the EIS process. This evaluation should enable, the selection^—.
and rVJPnenlalion of the most cost-effective mitigation program. This pre-projec^BJ
: ;, i 47
- •* Pre-projecl evaluation approaches cam beconsldered in two categories^-quaKiativc
and quantitative. A qualitative approach is represented by the evaluation of measures
' Jfiised for similar types of projects. In this context, the earlier section on identification i
could be considered as an approach to validate qualitatively the effectiveness of
"identified measures. However, the explicit assumption is that the implemented
measure(s) will be successful, and this is not necessarily so. For example, Race (1987).
summarized a number of studies of the effectiveness of man-created wetlands used as
iJ|mitigation measures in the San Francisco Bay area. It was concluded that reports of the
success of these man-made wetland projects have been over-slated. Therefore, the keys
PF l= consideration in a pre-projcct qualitative evaluation should be related to the demon-
c strated effectiveness of the measures. Case studies which incorporate post-EIS monitor-9
" ing to verify mitigation program effectiveness would be extremely useful; however, at
!l this time the number of such studies is minimal.
4.3. PRE-PROJECT QUANTITATIVE EVALUATION ~
*r Several structured habitat-based methodologies have been developed for evaluating
both biological impacts and the potential effectiveness of proposed mitigation measures.
Three examples include: (I) the habitat evaluation system (HES); (2) the habitat
evaluation procedure (HEP); and (3) the wetland evaluation technique (WET). The first
two examples can be used for determining mitigation land requirements for projects
impacting fish and wildlife resources (U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, 1980; and U.S.
Fish and Wildlife Service, 1980). The latter example can be used systematically to
evaluate mitigation measures for projects exhibiting wetland impacts through considera-
tion of wetland functions and values (Adamus et a/., 1987). It is beyond the scope of this
paper to review thoroughly all three examples; however, the HEP will be briefly
described to illustrate its usefulness in a pre-project evaluation of proposed biological
impact mitigation measures.
The HEP is a method which can be used to document the quality and quantity of
available habitat for both aquatic and terrestrial animal species (U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service, 1980). The HEP is based on the assumption that habitat for selected species can
be described by a habitat suitability index (HSI). This index value (from 00 to I -0) which
is indicative of quality is multiplied by the area of available habitat (quantity) to obtain
habitat units (HUs). The first step of a HEP application consists of: (I) defining the
study area; (2) delineating cover types; and (3) selecting three to five evaluation species.
Information on species selection is contained elsewhere (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service,
1980).
A HEP analysis is structured around the calculation of HUs for each evaluation
species in the study area. The total area of available habitat for an evaluation species
includes all areas that can be expected to provide some support to the species. The total
area of available habitat is calculated by summing the areas of all co ver types likely to be
used by the species. The HSI values are described via HSI models. The HSI models are
usually presented in graphic, descriptive and mathematical formats (Schamberger et al,
1982). HSI models have been published for about ISO evaluation species, and more are
being developed.
Impact in the HEP is defined as the difference between HUs with the project and
HUs without the project. Averaged annual HUs are used in the impact calculations. The
final step in the HEP involves the development of mitigation plarutfkappropriale.
III
.. :.i—.:<•.. —,_..>„,. .!,„. ,
-------
Ui
I
)—I
oo
mea ,s to existing habitat to effect a net increase in HUs. The existing habitat ma)'
may not be located in the "impact" study area. In order to obtain mitigation, the hu
losses due to the proposed action must be fully offset by the specified acquisition and/or
management measures. The three possible mitigation goals are (U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service, 1980):
I. In-kind (no trade-off)—This goal is to offset precisely the HI) loss Tor each
evaluation species. Therefore, the list of target species must be identical to the list
of negatively impacted species. The ideal compensation plan will provide, for each
individual species, an increase in HU's equal in magnitude to the HU losses.
2. Equal replacement (equal trade-off)—This goal is to offset precisely the HU
losses through a gain of an equal number of HUs. With this goal, a gain of one
HU for any target species can be used to offset the loss of one HU for any
evaluation species. The list of target species may or may not be identical to the list
of impacted species.
3. Relative replacement (relative trade-off)—With this goal, a gain of one HU for
any target species is used to offset the loss of one HU Tor an evaluation species at a
differential rate depending on the species involved. The trade-off rates can be
defined by relative value index (RVI) values for each species.
After the goals are set, the mitigation analysts is the same as that used to identify
project impacts. The steps in the process are to:
I. Select a candidate mitigation study area. The area can be of any size but must be
at least large enough to be a manageable unit for the target species. Develop a
cover type map and determine the area of each cover type.
2. Conduct a baseline habitat assessment for each target species. Baseline data for
individual species in the "impact" area may be used if the candidate compensation
area is similar in terms of HSI values. If this is not the case, additional field work
to determine IISIs will be necessary in the study area.
3. Determine the average annual HUs for the study area assuming no future
proposed action.
4. Identify a proposed management action that will achieve specified goals. Specify
the management measures (e.g. prescribed burning, selective timber cutting and
others) that will be used to increase the HUs for the target species in the candidate
area.
5. For the mitigation area, contrast the HUs without management to the HUs with
proposed management measures and determine the net increase in HUs.
One brief example of a HEP analysis will be mentioned, with this analysis focused on
evaluating thermal mitigation alternatives for two nuclear reactors. Specifically, Mackey
ei al. (1987) evaluated the potential effects on wildlife of the implementation of thermal
mitigation alternatives for the C and K reactors at the Savannah River Plant in South
Carolina, U.S.A. The HEP approach as modified by the Savannah River Laboratory
was used. This approach enabled the relative ranking of project alternatives and/or
mitigation strategies with respect to representative wildlife species over the life of the
project or for selected time periods in the future. For the C and K reactors the potential
wildlife impacts and/or benefits of once-through and recirculating cooling lowers were
evaluated for both neat term (30 year) and long-term (100 year) lime periods.
Based upon this brief review of the HEP, it can be stated that this method can be used
to evaluate the costs and pn1' nlial effectiveness of differing mitigation strategies for a
' '. The structured nature of the HEP is conducive to its use as an evaluation •- -'
logical impact mitigation measures.
5. Summary
Identification and evaluation of mitigation measures for adverse biological impacts
proposed projects has become an important component in the EIS process. The foctil
point for opposition and debate relative to a proposed project often centers on the lypc
and extent of appropriate mitigation measures. This paper has delineated several
approaches for both identifying and evaluating potential mitigation measures. Examples
of identification approaches include the review of utilized measures for similar project;;.
the use of computer-based literature and information searches, and (he use ofconipulci-
generated checklists of potential measures. Examples of evaluation approaches include:
post-EIS environmental monitoring; pre-project qualitative evaluation bused on CUM-
studies; and pre-project quantitative evaluation using structured habitat-based methods
Based upon this review, the following conclusions can be drawn:
I. There are an ample number of approaches which can (Mused to identify poicniiiil
mitigation measures for the adverse biological impacts of proposed projects.
2. While systematic methodologies are available for evaluating the potential effec-
tiveness of mitigation measures, these methodologies have not been extensively
used as a part of the EIS process. Perhaps one reason for limited usage is tlie-
uncertainty associated with measures such as habitat development and enhance-
ment.
3. Post-EIS environmental monitoring can be a definite aid to impact management
and determination of the actual effectiveness of implemented mitigation
measures.
4. Many have the perception that mitigation is simply an unnecessary add-on cost
for a project. However, while the implementation of a mitigation program may he
cosily, it may be much more cost-effective to have a mitigation program from I tic
beginning of a project rather than having to initiate an even more costly
environmental clean-up program al some future point in time.
References
Adamui,P. R.,Clairain,E.).,Smith.R. D.«nd Young, R. E.(1987). WeitanJEvaluation Tectinigur (ll'£II
Volume It-Methodology, Vkksburg, Mississippi: U.S. Army Engineer Waterways Experiment Station.
Ctnler, L. W. ind Faltchild, D. M. (1986). Post-EIS environmental monitoring. In Methods and Experiem e\ m
Impact Assessment (H. Becker and A. Poiter, eds), pp. 265-285 The Hague. The Netherlands: Re Mel
Publishing Company.
Council on Environmental Quality (1978). National Environmental Policy Act- Regulations. Federal Rtgnn-r
43 (210), 29 November, 5S978-S6007.
Desjardini, C. R. (1979). Ecological Mitigation: A viable option in the federal-aid highway program. In llu-
Mitigation Symposium-A National Workshop on Mitigating Losses offish anil Wildlife Habitats, pp. 562
565. Washington. D.C.: U.S. Forest Service.
FitzPilrick, M., Willson, J.. Erkson. 0., Fan. G. and Wood, D. (1977). Manual for Evaluating SrmmfiiM
Impacts ofWastewater Treatment Facilities, pp. 111 -112. EPA-600/S 78 003. Washington DC: F.nvitim
mental Protection Agency.
Mackey, II. E. el al. (1987). Habitat Evaluation Primitive IHEF) Assessment fat Thermal Miiifiiiinn
Alter natives for CandK Reactors. DPST-87- 578. Aiken. South Carolina: DuPonl de Nemours (I! M ami
Co.
Monterey Peninsula Water Pollution Control Agency. U.S. Environmental Piolw!iiin Agency and Junes ami
Stokes Associates Inc. (1977). Final Environmental Impact Statement and Environmental Impact Ri-pmi
North Monterey Facilities Plan, pp. XVIII XXI and 188 198. Monterey. California.
PEEM Secretariat (I98J). Panel of Experts on Environmental Management fur Vecliir Cnnlnil tPfl-MI.
Report of the Third Meeting. Rome 12-16 September I9S). VBC/83--4. Geneva. Switzerland: World Hc.ilili
Organitation.
Race, M. S. (1987). "San Francisco Bay experience". In Proteedings of the Conference an Nori/inesi llv* Aim A
What Are They? For Wham? Fur What?, pp. 201-209. Seattle, Washington: Insti'- rur Envmiimicnl;il
Studies, University of Washington.
-------
Schiimberger. Mn Farmer. A. II. i*d Terrell, J, Wr (1912). W«*"«» &*«»/% Met Mmteh-
FWS/OBS 82/10, Foil ColiM, Cdortdo: US FWi wd WMIifc Service
SlmUfner. P W,, Cope, D, F. Md Newton. K. A. (I9T9) Ewlvglcal Efttu efHighvw Mi en Wtikmls.
Vxr's Manual NCIIRP Report 2I8B. WaiMntlon. DC: National Cooperative Ilifttway Research
Program. Transportation Research Board, National Research Cornell.
U S. Army Construction Engineering Research Laboratory (1911). ETIS Quarterly. Champaign. Ilinoii,
US. Army Construction Engineering Research Laboratory (1981) The Environmental Technical Information
System Overview ami Vur Orientation, Champaign. Illinois.
US. Army Corps of Englnetri (1910) A HaWwi Etaluatlim Syitemfw Wattr Kttimnei naming. Vkkihur|.
Miiiiiiippi: Lower Miultiipp! Vdley Dlvlilon.
U S Reparlmenl of Energy (I9JO). Final Etnttcmmaltl ImpaH Suiemtnl: Great Plaint Cailficaihn finjecl.
Mercir County. North Dakota, p^ 4-7 lo 4-14. DOE EIS C072F, Vol. I. Wnhin|lon, D.C.
U S Depirlmenl of Ihe Interior (1979). RIM! Entltcumenlal Impact Statement: Peimanenl Refulatnry
Fruitam Implemenllni Sec. iOl(b) aftht Stafaa Mtoliit Control and Reclamation Acl of 1977. pp BIII-71
lo Blll-ll. Washinilon, D.C.
U.S. Department of the Interior, Ofllc* of Surfw* Mlrtlnf Recltmillon tnd Enforcement (1980). Draft
Environmental Statement: frofoui Mlnfaj mi Reclamation Plan. Koja Cabelhi Mine. Campbell County.
H'yomlnt, pp. A-9 lo A-IJ. WnMn|lon, D.C.
U S Depirlmenl of TriniporHllon (I9l8a). Eniliaametital Antnmtnt: AMtlon of Parallel Lanei lo SH I)
from Woodwari lo Moorelona. Woofwmi County. pp.J-U. Fort Worth. Teu$: Federal Hiihway
Adminlilrallon Region 6. ....
U S Department of Traniponallon (I9I»»). Enrtonmtniol Aimtmtnt efSHM Project oter the Neoiho Klnr
East ofCheuteau, Mayi County. Oklahoma, pp. 3-11. Appendin A. Fort Worth, Te»ai: Federal Highway
Adminiilralion Region 6.
U S Department of Traniportatlon (1910). Final Emltonmenial Impact Statement: Oiafe Route. Tuba anil
Otate Counllel. Oklahoma, pp.F-l lo F-15, and K-l lo K-ll. Fort Worth. Te»u Federal Highway
Adminiilralion Region 6.
U.S Department of Twniportallon (1915). Final Entlrtnmenial Impact Statement: frofoiea SH 74. N.W.
tiri to N.W. I7llh. Oklahoma Clly. Oklahoma, pp. JO-41. 55-56. A-14 lo A-ll. Fort Worth. Te«a»:
Federal Highway Admlniilrallon Region 6.
U.S. Department ofTianiportalion (1975). Mlllfaltoi Ainru Environmental Effecli of Highway Cliniiruc-
lion, pp. 1-24. Waihlnglon. D.C: Tiamporlallon Reiearch Board Annual Meeting.
U S Environmental Protection Agency (1979). Draft Environmental Impact Statement: Alternative Wauevater
Treatment Sytlemi for Rural Lake Project* Case Study No. I: Crystal Lake Area Sewage Disposal
Authority, finale County. Michigan, pp. 151-HR. Chicago. Illlnoii.
U S. Environmental Protection Agency (I9«ln). Draft Environmental Impact Statement: Martin Lake D Area.
Lignite Surface Mint. Henitnon. Rusk County. Ttxas. pp.i-9S lo 6-109. EPA 9M/9-H-003. Dallai.
U.S Environmental Protection Agency (!9Mf). Draft Environmental tmpatt Statement: Twin Oak Steam
Electric Station. Robertson County. Ttxat. pp.6-95 lo 6-107. EPA 906/9-M-OIO. Dallas. Te»ai.
U S. Environmental Protection Agency (I9»J»). Draft Environmental Impact Statement H'oirnrarfr Treat-
ment radiates. Tulsa (NonraOe). Oklahoma, pp. 5-135. EPA 906/9-M-009. Dallas. Te«af.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (1980). Draft Environmental Impact Statement for tfaitewaier
Treatment Facilities. Northeast El Paso. Texas, pp. 6-42 lo 6-56. Dallas, Teaai.
U S Environmental Protection Agency (I9IJ6). Environmental Impact Statement: rVastewater Treatment
FaciliiieslCity of Fort Worth. Tarranl County. Texas, pp.5-ISt lo 5-161. EPA 904/9 83 MS. Dallas.
Texas.
U S Environmental Protection Agency (I982o). Birfrenmnifo/ Impact Statement: Waste water Treatment
F.
U.S Environmental Protection Agency (1977). Final Environmental Impact Statement: Steamboat Springs
Regional Serme Authority. XI tt'etttwaur Facilities Plan. pp. 17 and 165-167. Denver. Colorado.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (1976). Final Environmental Impact Statement for Sea-age Treatment
Facilities for the South Bloomington and Lake Monroe Service Areas. Bloomington. Indiana, pp. 4 11 -1 lo
4 II 5. Chicago. Illinois.
U S Environmental Protection Agency (I983c). Supplemental Final Environmental Impact Statement: Doles
Hills Lignite Kline Project. DeSoto Parish. Louisiana (Supplement to the Dole! Hills Power Plant EISI,
pp. Ml to I 13. and III 12 lo III 40 EPA 906/9 83 007. Dallas. Tei.l.
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (1988). Endangered Spetiei Information System-Project Brief. Washington.
DC _
U S Fish and Wildlife Servke (UftoUabiiai Evaluation ProceJurn (HEP). ESM 102. Washington. DC
U.S. National Park Service (I^^Bo/l Environmental Impact Statement for Traffic and Reireaiimal
Hanotenient.tieoriett'aihiii^fnemitrial Parkwav Vutinia-Marrlniul-nhinri nf f~aln»M* ™ 11 n
-------
1.5.15-20
-------
AN UNREADABLE EIS IS AN ENVIRONMENTAL HAZARD
Weiss, E. H. 1989. An unreadable EIS is an environmental hazard. The Environmental
Professional '11:236-240. ,
n ii'Uii'i H is, VBI: ".is: • liiii,!.!" „<* "r, in aft iiniir1 .iiiiii' in "'.',•.,
„ , •• I'll1 it,:" i iii, 'ii '
iiririii1" ; in;i • • .Mii1 ""i, jsiiiiii' Ji''ai11'1'1;1!1!1!.!,;:1'" tK'.i niiii "j • •'•' s
ail .i* *i ;, fii,,, e,;1.- ^m1! • ••v:i
1 wi! £&> , ;:i, iii,;"! ' ',11 « i:,,
"i1 iilil," ,;;, "'a,' ,,i|;'„,;,!! pi,, J Silk, '„;, i" in;,,! 11
.TSUI,;,' i,''tiiii"-!,1,';"!1;,-1 y'li'is ?"',i1' 'is™ V4
'.lllllUll , I,!,':< , < ' 111'1 1 i,
I-,1)1 I"'!'1 •,{,;(• !' ' II'f I,"
: 'Illiiiil'1'1 !J» JliiPl"!!!11' ii 15" '
'iii,,i: „!,'" 'iii'iijDiiiiiiiiii' 'ii'iiiiii " "i "h vni, ' ,'" ' i '.i'Sill'!' " i,,1!:,'1
"MS .'ItlllliifV 111.*!! "a I" ' ,'li',i": n"(l " III I -
f"1, j,;r!|IIIIJi-„ I •l!l|!,,,t:tii;l!,,,i:i!llli, :,>*a>. '.: I;:*1" :••
'fiii, J , in,.:' .".','*"» : '.''i'i'i.i!1 """l- ii'li
"iiiijiriii/T ,,';i;,,,n ,..(i ;,.'»• ,»' t".':''!.-!"!11
'I., in l!
iiii, > IK
1.5.16-1
! Mi ' il ill!", I1,1!111:, ! ''.' ll'llif
»"„ /swim S"!"1"' - i ','. :i
,, ,,
'jjl'l'l'1'!""1 ,,:"*fi ,. '"I"II.
, '
^^^ .^
,,;i gii ,. si in,!; : i ,„ ,1 , ,|; "i;,''".„;,;;„;,"!'''"J ; ;„,'!!"'".; i,;:" .ti.t»i >. ir s. tt-f iiii*••;,:•':': <<*
lagiit I, , i ,,i , ,'!,„"' /' «,,!,, ,1';,, , ' """'', ,,i; ,„'!,,,!i,i ii, 'i1 ,,l"i 'it'l1',,|M „ si"'1!" '''Sill ' i j"!";1!!',,* iirtS1' !'} •'; ii"''1"1:1, i1. I'll!1, l'"i;l1' liiiui i, liiiiiniisfl
,| illlll1"!'! Ji'lirlP 'I'lJiiii;
^
JIT , ...... ', ....... ,,|!" .......... lillll ........... , " ..................
f .......... ...... ,| ',,'.', ..... Mil,! ....... 'I' ,!!',", .......... .iriliV ......... ""."'I' ..... .» ......... " ......... '!
, i,,!!:!!!i,ii,M iiPiii"1,!* lii'.'i'iii"1
,,,mi ;!,,,,,,ilJIP' litl,1,1,'iiTn ""i ,' "Ii, 4 ^JjiVllflUlli l|, iiHIin PittlTI"1 :, ' ,",illll!llll|ljllll
i:;'*'w '•,;imaik.•..ii'O •»ifi1 isiiiiia *«;'»'sii iii
-------
1.5.16-2
-------
KHOFESSIONAL REPORT
An Unreadable EIS is an Environmental Hazard
Edmond H.Weiss
Cherry Hill, New Jersey '
Abstract. An Environmental Impact Statement alerts the government and public to the possible hazards of proposed actions.
An unreadable EIS is an environmental hazard, potentially as deadly as stack emissions or dioxin in the groundwater.
Many EISs. of course, are written by engineers and re-
scarchgg, without benefit of professional "wordsmiths."
The engineer's notorious aversion to ^tnig (and the un-
willingness of most firms to buy writing services) means
that EISs arc at least as unreadable as most other technical
documents prepared by a team of middling writers working
to an unforgiving deadline.
But, despite what some consultants may think, the bad
writing in an EIS is much more serious than a matter of
esthetics; the issue is not "English" or refinements of style.
The issue is the quality of the document, its usefulness in
support of the goals of environmental legislation, and, by
implication, tie quality of the environmental
stewardship entrusted to the scientific community.
111 i in i ii iiiiiiiiiiii i mill M ii ill i
PART OF THE PROBLEM
OR PART OF THE SOLUTION
i
An unreadable EIS not only hurts the environmental
protection laws and, thus, the environment. It also turns the
sincere environmental engineer into a kind of "polluter."
1 '" '" l"1 ' 'll11'1 ' '" ' ?"
Consider the irony. Environmental engineers, those
solitary champ ions of environmental quality, usually more
than ready to do battle with well-financed developers and
Edmond H. Weiss, Ph.D. is an independent consultant, writer,
and lecturer, specializing in technical communication. He spends
most of his time traveling throughout North America teaching
writing seminars for engineers, scientists, and computer profes-
sionals. He is the author of The Writing System for Engineers and
Scientists {Prentice-Hall, 1982), How To Write a Usable User
Manual (IS1 Press; 1985), and How To Document a System (Oryx
Press. 1990). His base is Cherry Hill, New Jersey.
Requests for reprints may be addressed to Edmond H. Weiss,
Ph.D., 1612 Crown Point Lane, Cherry Hill, New Jersey 08003
(609/795-5580).
well-connected waste handlers, are increasingly perceived
as paid apologists for the people whose actions may foul
the environment. Why? Because most Environmental Im-
pact Statements are so difficult and unpleasant to read that
they make people suspicious. Even someone only
moderately skeptical might suspect that readers are dis-
couraged from reviewing the report too carefully. And, in
a time when bright people worry that environmental laws
can be manipulated and undermined by powerful interests,
the inaccessible and unreadable EIS has come to be viewed
as part of the problem instead of part of the solution.
Some EISs, then, are seen as a deliberate effort to obscure
the questions, to inhibit debate and intimidate all the op-
ponents of a proposed project or action.
1 I" I' , Igl "I H .!,,( It Ij •• : ' - J 5 v V i- " ¥"
Of course, this public perception is unfair. Although en-
vironmental consultants occasionally err in the favor of the
agencies who pay their fees, the typical individual or firm
is scrupulously honest in describing and predicting en-
vironmental consequences. Whether motivated by the
noble ethics of the profession or just by the mundane fear
of being discredited in the consulting marketplace, en-
vironmental specialists would be the last to defeat the spirit
of the environmental protection laws and codes. Quite the
contrary. The typical EIS is not obscure by intent. It only
seems that way —the consequence of certain bad habits of
thought and expression.
There are three broad classes of errors that undermine the
clarity and credibility of many EISs:
Strategic Errors are mistakes of planning,
failure to understand why the EIS is being written
and for whom.
Structural Errors are mistakes of organization,
failure to arrange the elements in the document in
a way that makes them easy to follow, and
THilNVI5ONM|^A|.PRpPESSIONAL Volume 11 pp. 236 - 240 0191-5398/88 0191-5398/89 S3.00 + .00
1989. Printed in the USA. All rights reserved. Copyright © National Association of Environmental Professionals
111. ii's :, IB::
ilii r iiiF l;.:i
i'^Wit I' WB'iU/;iWHIWHi' i"LSi .i.ii:..(ji '„
iijl ililll!l,i!^^
1.5.16-3
"i1 M «: * • liar"!.'!: I .< • i, .Iliuiii' •„, miff;,; | rv. 4; j; |"s ir.;1; , if,3:' <;.
-------
UNREADABLE EIS
237
Tactical Errors are mistakes of editing, failure
to test and revise the texts for clarity and
readability.
STRATEGIC ERRORS
A strategic error is tantamount to writing the wrong docu-
ment. That is, the engineers and others, for a variety of
reasons, produce an EIS that misses the true objective of
the project— even while it complies with federal or state
"guidelines." Especially when the EIS is composed by
several authors working independently, the risk is great
that the final product will meet the letter of the law but not
the spirit.
More specifically, EISs are often undermined by naive
attitudes, the most prevalent being that the document is a
dispassionate, objective collection of unambiguous, hard
facts about environmental effects. Typically, though an
EIS vitally affects hundreds or thousands of people—in-
cluding a few very rich and powerful ones. In a sense, the
principal function of the EIS is to provide facts, projec-
tions, and analyses that raise the level of debate among
those thousands at interest.
In countless cases the EIS has affected the commercial
interests of developers and contractors, even the political
aspirations of local officials whose campaigns include
promises of projects with environmental implications. No
matter what the guidelines say, and no matter what dis-
claimers appear in the introduction, the findings in an EIS
may potentially help or hurt the progress of some project.
At the very least, it can uncover adverse effects that add
corrective costs to a proposed action. In extreme cases, it
can curtail the plans of the very agency or firm that paid
for the study.
Moreover, an EIS, like even the best science done in
support of public policy and health, contains a substantial
number of extrapolations and inferences, many built on
simplifying assumptions, debatable theses, and even
secondhand data from parties with vested interests. (Given
two or three questionable presumptions, environmental
assessment becomes only slightly more precise than stock
market forecasting.)
In short, an EIS is a work of science, as opposed to an
aggregation of hard facts; it is rich with, to use Popper's
term, intelligent conjecture. Consultants, often under
pressure from sponsors to produce unambiguous con-
clusions, must remember that the quality of their assess-
ments derives from the quality of the underlying warrants
(Stephen Toulmin's term) in their models.
The document should be much more than a compendium
of technical details, interesting mainly to readers with the
• appropriate technical background. But, without meaning
to, most EIS authors aim their writing at the wrong
audience. They assume not only that the work will be read
almost exclusively by environmental engineers and
specialists, but also that each specialized component (air,
water, archeology, odor...) will be read only by persons
with that specialty.
Even though many of the readers are such specialists, the
most important readers are not. Quite the contrary, the
main readers of the EIS are in three motivated groups:
A higher jurisdiction of government, respon-
sible for a series of decisions, often including
enforcement, frequently under political pressure
to approve or disapprove (in the guise of "neutral"
review for compliance)
Supporters of the proposed action, hoping that
the EIS will not forecast any unavoidable conse-
quences or more attractive alternatives, impatient
to have it approved as quickly as possible
Opponents of the action, alert to any instance in
which its adverse effects are minimized or in
which those of the alternatives are exaggerated,
especially skeptical of all assumptions, inferen-
ces, and secondhand or imputed data.
By failing to appreciate that the EIS is a work of scientific
conjecture, aimed at motivated and even cynical readers,
environmental engineers commit the worst strategic error
of all, the one that undermines not only EISs but many other
technical documents as well: lack of apparent function
or purpose. (That is, there is a tendency among among
intellectual writers—scientists, engineers, scholars—to act
as though the purpose of the document was to write about
the subject. An effective EIS, though, or any effective
technical publication, is designed and written to ac-
complish specific communication objectives in well-
defined audiences. Ironically, the more fascinated the
author is with the subject, the greater the risk that the
document will lack purpose and frustrate its readers.)
An EIS. in addition to presenting its facts and projections,
must assure those who deserve to be assured, arouse those
whose interests are at risk, satisfy the stewards of environ-
mental laws, and stimulate enlightened discussion among
decisionmakers and their constituents.
The assessment of environmental impact is hardly ever
simple, objective, or uncontroversial. Rather, it is a prob-
lem in scientific advocacy, in which the main issue is
whether the investigating team has assembled enough
credible evidence and argument to prove a central thesis.
Either that:
1.5.16-4
-------
EDMOND H. WEISS
The proposed action will have no important ad-
verse effect on the environment, or
The proposed action is better for the environment
than "no action," or
The proposed action is clearly better for the en-
vironment than the alternatives, or
Although there is an environmentally superior
alternative, its greater costs are not justified by its
environmental benefits (or are justified)
For an EIS to have an effective thesis (one of those above,
or some other more appropriate to the situation), the Project
, Director must assert Tesponsibility and take intellectual
n n Jill ill i inn n i ii iriiiiiiiiiiiii! nil uf- ^ - ^ .
risks. Put simply, he or she must direct the project and see
that the EIS has a.coherent point of view—that each of the
five or ten or twenty specialists at work on each of the
"parameters"'knows the aucKence and the thesis. Without
such direction, the EIS will look as so many of them do: a
patchquilt.
STRUCTURAL ERRORS
"|l|lli'i,1 ' ' ',,» I "' ..'H/i t; w g y .,
If form follows function (as some architects are fond of
saying), it is not surprising that many EISs are in a form
l™'::i Islhit/reflects'Itheir lack of thesis and their indifference
|, ;<,: iiii ",| toward the audience. Generally, they are huge and inacces-
miSm.";!i sible. Like a patchquilt, they are filled with beginnings and
endings, choppy, inconsistent, ragtag.
nil-i , iiiiii,; !
in iSiiii)
INI 111:IE: I nil1 ,: ,,,11 111,
•In i»,,III, 1:18:
ni : in lie '
Most EISs appear to be organized in a way that makes them
easier to review or "check off than to study and question.
They are arranged so that even a superficial reviewer will
qlulckly see that everything that is supposed to be in the
document is there. And if that were the only mission of the
HIS, to satisfy some mindless bureaucratic checklist, such
an organization would be appropriate. Furthermore, if that
"'Silrejheonly function of the EIS, there would be no reason
•, if jgwrjte this essay!
, I
§uf"Sat is not the sole mission or function. EISs are
";" ! 'i""1'» a isiiiiiiii 5, u i, '~c , , . .
important documents meant to be read by interested
readers with vital concerns. (Not just compendiums of fact
to be appraised with a checklist.) It is shamelessly cynical
for/environmental consultants to regard the writing and
;;;;;' '^\ ^%wing of the EIS as nothing more "than "going through
the mot5onsw oFenvironmental assessment, a tiresome ad-
;T;:J. "fninistrative hassle, ^red tape" en route to getting the
,,,'. jJroject approved. ' "''
ii' r nm it, PHI a,1'!
For many readers, the typical EIS has an inaccessible
'organization. Most readers do not want to study each
"environmental parameter" in depth. They do not want to
reflect on the history of the planet before they find out
11 -I""" ' 1 i ., I/,! ,. v I, ,, „ , ,, ,,„„,
whether the local groundwater is likely to be fouled. Nor
do they want to read several hundred pages to learn if there
are any unavoidable consequences of the project.
ii
For the sake of most readers, the EIS should be organized
to allow direct and immediate comparison of the proposed
action with the "ho action" alternative, followed by a
similar comparison with alternative sites, technologies,
and actions. Moreover, the comparisons should address
only^hat is relevant If trie effect on a certain parameter
is inconsequential, it should be reported briefly and dis-
missed (even though we paid a hefty fee to the subcontrac-
tor specialist). If differences between alternatives are too
small to matter,"they need not be discussed—unless there
is reason to believe that part of the audience is especially
interested. Nowadays it is hard to escape the impression
that the controversial or "soft" parts of the study are being
deliberately camouflaged beneath hundreds of pages of
unimportant detail.
In a well-made EIS, the average reader—including the
lay reader—should be able to find what he or she wants
to know in less than five minutes. One minute, if the
findings are unusually straightforward.
An effective EIS should be well-endowed with "search
tools": intro^uctTons^ summaries, overviews, reviews,
digests, or abstracts. It is even easy to imagine an EIS that
is mainly summaries, with much of the technical detail
relegated to attachments and appendixes. In contrast,
though, what do we usually see?
The introduction is malnourished; it reads like an
afterthought.
The table of contents is incomplete, and the head-
ings (the names of the sections) do not address the
questions raised by readers. In effect, one must be
an expert to find anything.
There are no chapter introductions or section in-
troductions; no marginal glosses.
There is hardly any typographic emphasis or ac-
cent: underscoring, boldfacing, italics, indenta-
tion, color, capitalization—none of the simple
techniques for making the most pointed and con-
clusive sentences stand out from the dense back-
ground of the page.
(I recently read a 500-page EIS that had not one
underscored sentence. When I proposed changes
in presentation and typography, I was told direct-
ly'by trie'sponsor tHaVhe didn't want the EIS to
stimulate any more discussion than neces-
sary!)
tl m M,"' ii Silt ;
; ; ji J
-------
UNREADABLE EIS
239
Because of the way they are written, most EISs are clumsy
and disjointed.
They are obviously the work of many authors, with jarring-
ly different styles of writing. Typically, each author
doesn't care much about what the others are up to; the
project director spends more time reassuring the sponsor
than ensuring that all the authors are working on a coherent
document.
Often, the several sections are at radically different levels
of detail or difficulty—some containing sophisticated
models, others high school primers on the measurement of
sound. The worst problem is the disjunction of text and
exhibits, the needless separation of text from the charts,
tables, photos, and figures. Readers are perpetually told to
"see Map X"—which is typically several pages away, or in
another volume.
My own research in technical communication has led me
to conclude that this simple mechanical problem—the
separation of the text from the exhibits needed to make it
clear—is the single greatest barrier to the reading of EISs
and other technical publications. In a well-designed EIS
(Note: EISs must be designed, not just assembled!), nearly
every time a reader is told to see a chart or table it will be
either on the same page or a facing page. The more we
ask readers to jump, skip, detour—the more often we ask
them to be in two places at once—the greater their
suspicion that the writers do not really want the material
read.
Of course, most of the people who write the separate parts
of an EIS do not even think about so pedestrian a question
as the position of the charts and maps. That, after all, is an
editor's problem—or, in some places, the typist's problem.
Generally, the only writers who care deeply about the
physical layout of the document are those who want it to
be easy to read.
TACTICAL ERRORS
Tactical errors are failures of editing. They include the
mechanical mistakes—misspellings, errors of grammar
and punctuation— as well as misused words and phrases.
More subtle, and more serious, are failures of style: clumsy
syntax or awkward, wordy sentences. When most en-
gineers think about "writing," it is these tactical issues that
come to mind. And when most engineers disparage their
writing, it is actually their editing that is at fault.
Tactical errors add "friction" to communication. Where
there should be a simple transfer of facts and ideas from
writer to reader, instead there are distractions, irritations,
rubs.
There are two broad kinds of tactical errors: obvious viola-
tions and subtle mistakes. The obvious ones are less
dangerous because they are more likely to be detected and
corrected. Misspelling "supersede," using the word criteria
as a singular, using "due to" in place of "because of: these
are the bugs that should be caught by the writer, or even
such "style-checking" software as RightWriter or Gram-
matik.
The trouble with the subtler mistakes is that they are rarely
textbook errors. And, unless there is a real editor or an
especially literate Ph.D in the firm, no one is likely to
correct them. These are errors of style, like the "smothered
verb" ("perform the computation or versus "compute";
"conduct an inspection or versus "inspect"). Or the
"vitiated predicate" ("The possibility of damage to the
crops from the steam exists" versus "The steam might
damage the crops").
There are also scores of wordy, windy, wasteful construc-
tions, like "consensus of opinion" or "ten-year period of
time" or "visible to the eye." And ostentatious synonyms,
like "utilize" for "use" or "facilitate" for "aid." And
misused words, like "fortuitous" (which does not mean
lucky) and "enormity" (which does not mean immensity)
or "preventative" (which is not the same word as preven-
tive) or "remediate" (which is a solecism on the verge of
being a barbarism, no matter how many people use it).
Recently I edited an EIS in which I removed the word
"situated" more than 100 times. "X is situated in Y" be-
comes "X is in Y." "Q is situated west of P" becomes "Q
is west of P." In the same document I also changed
"presently" to "currently" at least fifty times.
Why are there so many young professionals who cannot
distinguish "historical" form "historic"? And why is there
no basic agreement on whether the word "impact" itself
refers to all effects or only to undesirable ones. (Does "no
impact" mean no effect, or no harm? If all "impacts" are
bad, why do we write "adverse impact"?) Would it improve
our EISs if we wrote them without any form of the word
"impact"? Answer: Yes
And these are the easy mistakes, the ones even a green
editor would correct in a minute. What about the more
difficult problems, though? The unbearably long sentences
and paragraphs? The lack of links to connect one sentence
to the next? The jarring differences in style from section to
section? The oppressive lack of variety in sentence pat-
terns? These problems need a better editor, who, in turn,
needs the time and authority to correct them.
Most EISs have never been visited by a real editor. Of those
I've read, about one in five shows evidence of anything
more than rudimentary editing. Partly, this is because most
1.5.16-6
-------
I*'1!IIIII:I !! 1 I'll"!..! IHtfNff >'! :|l!l""!' iil!ii IWWWW" iTiililllV^^
-------
1.5.16-8
-------
ill in
i
EPA RATING SYSTEM CRITERIA FOR DRAFT EISs
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency rating system criteria for review of draft
environmental impact statements. (Source: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.
1984. Policy and Procedures for the Review of Federal Actions Impacting the
Environment. EPA Manual 1640)
liriilliflihll1,, t ;:Jii, • Nii« t , JlilK'i'i
.
iiiifl iiir:!' Iiii'lii
i" • wt 5j ^ > ;^i: ; :
I', ill "" ,:W.. ...... : ...... I',. 'i, >'«-•
t'll ..... •.•"-:|11-l! 'It1, I "IIS ........ ',
'' ..... t ..... i
. . , . , , . „ . .
-ft ....... " j|" I"!,;,11"" .......... li." 'I ..... .1 . ','.! ' IIK ri'll'l, f'rll
i?1;
!' iiilllllM^^^^^^^ '
llll||ll|,ll, : 111,, 11
Ilil"! nil1 " llliiinil ,
1.5.17-1
mi in 11 in i ii PHI
iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii i n in i in ii n i iii in iiiiiiiii i
•111 II Mil I ll 1
IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII Illlllllllllllllllll 111 111 II I 111 IIIIIIIII 1111
111 II I III I II II
II Hill 111 II II
I
111(1111 111 IIIIIIIII
II 111 IIIIIIIII I IIIIIIIII IIIIIIIII
-------
1.5.17-2
-------
'|I'*|I=I s^S'
t ^ . Protection Agency rating system criteria for review"
draft environmental impact statements (Source: U.S. Environmental
^.^p^^gjjnXgencyl 1984. Policy and Procedures for the Review of Federal
Actions Impacting the Environment. EPA Manual 1640)
SUMMARY OF RATING DEFINITIONS AND FOLLOW-UP ACTION
Environmental Impact of the Action
iJJif vi.ii£1FiJ1lJ(lft '": K
Lo—Lack of Objections. The EPA review has not identified any potential environmental
impacts requiring su'S'stantive changes to the proposal. The review may have disclosed
opportunities for application of mitigation measures that could be accomplished with no more
than mlnbr c&ahges to me proposal.
| ..;; „
EC~EnvironmentaI Concerns. The EPA review has identified environmental impacts that
sho^teavoipTm order to fully prbtecf the environment. Corrective measures may require
changes to the preferred alternative or application of mitigation measures that can reduce the
environmental impact. EPA would like to work with the lead agency to reduce these impacts.
EO—Environmental Objections. The EI»A" review has identified significant environmental
impacts that must be avoided in order to provide adequate protection for the environment.
Corrective measures may require substantial changes to the preferred alternative or consideration
of some other project alternative (including the no action alternative or a new alternative). EPA
intends to work with the lead agency to reduce these impacts.
:::::, ':„;:; i, •:,;, ',:,; -'•• •'•-.•\'.~ -
EU— Environmentally Unsatisfactory. The EPA review has identified adverse environmental
impacts that are of sufficient magnitude that they are unsatisfactory from the standpoint of public
health or welfare or environmental quality. EPA intends to work with the lead agency to reduce
these impacts. If the potential unsatisfactory impacts are not corrected at the final EIS stage,
tij|s proposal will be recommended for referral to the CEQ.
Adecmacy of the Impact Statement
-liniiliiflllilli,]' !!!• i , i<, pli
Category 1—Adequate. EPA believes the draft EIS adequately sets forth the environmental
impact(s) of the preferred alternative and those of the alternatives reasonably available to the
project 5F'action. No further analysis or data collection is necessary, but the reviewer may
me Addition of clarifying language or information.
1.5.17-3
" i'., '1 raSllll Illlltlr1 1. ,
• I I I'msm .««•»„'•:•..< :,!.,:•,:
' " '' ' |i:' '''• "lllllr '" " "a ' ........ '•' •
~^:^l^i*!i.^ ^*¥^'v'-;«"^ t'-W'M •£;*! '^ISf^'^roi^S^isI
-' ...... . * • •:.•• ....... '!"f ! jPIIIIl-i1 ..... Bliilllfi , f. ; ........... I ..... Kill
•»"*> HIIL, *' , ri/'i
n -,• ;.
-------
Category 2—Insufficient Information. The draft EIS does not contain sufficient information
for EPA to fully assess environmental impacts that should be avoided in order to fully protect
the environment, or the EPA reviewer has identified new reasonably available alternatives that
are within the spectrum of alternatives analyzed in the draft EIS, which could reduce the
environmental impacts of the action. The identified additional information, data, analyses, or
discussion should be included in the final EIS.
Category 3—Inadequate. EPA does not believe that the draft EIS adequately assesses
potentially significant environmental impacts of the action, or the EPA reviewer has identified
new, reasonably available alternatives that are outside of the spectrum of alternatives analyzed
in the draft EIS, which should be analyzed in order to reduce the potentially significant
environmental impacts. EPA believes that the identified additional information, data, analyses,
or discussions are of such a magnitude that they should have full public review at a draft stage.
EPA does not believe that the draft EIS is adequate for the purposes of the NEPA and/or Section
309 review, and thus should be formally revised and made available for public comment in a
supplemental or revised draft EIS. On the basis of the potential significant impacts involved,
this proposal could be a candidate for referral to the CEQ.
1.5.17-4
-------
I Illllll
llll 11 ..... II" I (I ..... Ill I 111"1
111
111 I
lllllllllllll 11 II Illllllll Illllll IIII llll Illllll Illlllllllllll I Illllllll 111 III Illllll I III 111 Illllll II 111 111 111 II Illllll Illllll Illllll 111 Illllll llll III llll III I I Illllll 111 II I Illlillllllllllllllll 111 II llll 111
1 iiiiiii 1 iiiiiiiliii^ mi i mi in iiiiiiii iiiiiiiiiii i iiiiiii iiiiiii iiiii in i in in i i i n i in i i i inn n 1(1 i n n i •• ••
SECTION 1.6
DECISION MAKING
III III
•Ill 11 111 111 111 11 111 111 II III I 111 111 II Illlillllllllllllllll II llllll(l 111 111111 111
llll II I I 111 I I II III III II llll|ll 1111 III II III
«"!! ' = •>/ L , .Mi
II i
>,; ,-i,' ;V'-! ]%,'>' ,,!»
IIP ill Ml I ill
ill111! I Ilil'll
illllll
4J^ IS ^;3
-------
-------
111 HI ''''MQlilfc^
ill i
11 ii
DECISIONMAKING
For the purpose of this Resource Manual, decisionmaking is the authorizing
decision for a proposed project. It does not refer to the incremental technical
decisionmaking that occurs throughout the EA process (e.g., choice of impact
analysis techniques) or decisions made early on during initiation and scoping
(e.g., choice of alternatives) or decisions made during screening that proposed
actions dp not require the complete EA process. However, the real value of the
EA process may be in the avoidance of, or reduction in, adverse environmental
impacts as a result of incremental decisionmaking before a proposed action
reaches final decisionmaking.
Integration of EA into the decisionmaking process varies among countries.
In the U.S., EA is designed to assist agency planning and decisionmaking and not
to justify decisions that have already been made. An agency decision to adopt a
particular alternative is based on the EA document and formalized by a record of
decision that is available to the public. In the United Kingdom, the EA report is
seen as a supporting document to the submission of a project for authorization.
However, such projects have met a number of other statutory requirements during
their development.
In the U.S., decisionmaking can be seen as a two-stage process.1 Before
a draft EA document is ready for public and other agency review and comment,
, Ill* ^ L" - - . , ,. . . . ,
the proponent must endorse the draft subject to additional information and
comment during public hearings and review. After the draft document is revised
to reflect public and other agency comment, the document is finalized, an agency
decision is made, and a formal record of decision is published.
I
NEEDS
'll'l'i','. III1''"""^!!!''!!* M.,,' ! !
ft I i'M;"i.i
l <:1 v
Effective decisionmaking depends on 1) coordination and continuing
communication 5^^ the EA team leader and the decisionmaker(s), 2) a well-
organizedexecutive summary of the final EA document that provides the
decisionmaker with concise and objective information relevant to the important
issues, and 3) a public decision document that summarizes the basis for the final
decision including the uncertainties and mitigation and/or monitoring
requirements. "'": :"'"'"";''; :":' ::::":"':;"' '" ' ' ' : -: ; ''": •-' •": :: •;":"••;; -• •- •• ---•. -::.- ::..••..•• .-: •. ;.,
::;: •_••••_ , 1.6-1
JFqr purposes of this document, the term Environmental Assessment (EA) will refer to the
Environmental Impact Assessment (ElA) process.
-------
Decisionmaking requires compromise among many elements (e.g.,
technical, environmental, economic, political and administrative
factors). Thus, it is important that the decisionmaker is an integral
part of the EA process so that his/her decision is based on
understanding the choice of issues analyzed in the EA document
and the limitations of the analysis. Progress reports and periodic
briefings serve to eliminate surprises.
Decisions are often made by persons who are not closely involved
with the EA. Thus, an executive summary, based on the table of
contents of the EA document, must provide the decisionmaker with
clear and concise information to facilitate comparison of
alternatives and to support the choice of the environmentally
preferred alternative. The executive summary should include brief
discussion of the:
— proposed action with a schedule for implementation;
— viable alternatives that reflect the purpose of and need for
the proposed action;
— potential impacts of implementation (e.g., construction,
operation, accidents);
— relative importance of the environmental issues;
— basis for balancing the environmental impacts with other
impacts/benefits (e.g., economic, social, technical);
— recommendations and their implications;
— uncertainties and risks of proceeding and how the
uncertainties will be managed;
— concerns/views of the publics and technical specialists
(e.g., biologists, engineers); and
— mitigation in response to unavoidable impacts or
outstanding concerns and follow-up requirements.
As a general guide, an executive summary should be about 10
percent of the length of the report, up to a maximum of 10 pages.
It is often useful to print the executive summary on paper of a
different color (South Africa Department of Environment Affairs
1992)
The decisionmaking process culminates in the preparation of a
concise public record of the decision. It should include:
— a statement of the decision;
— discussion of the alternatives considered in reaching a
decision, including identification of .the environmentally
1.6-2
-------
'"I I'll "I" ' I "I III'III'1 I I"
i . " i,: ,i,
•'fill !l;ji
fi.< IMS
•HiCl'Li KKiKi
H;J4l«i;,,'.:'VK.
pi',^:^
;t
1? MiJ£ hiifi. 'i
preferable alternative or alternatives and any other relevant
factors that entered into the decision (e.g., economic and
technical considerations including, if appropriate, trade-offs
made in not selecting one of the preferred alternatives, as
., ||i;!::', .^^!w«]l. as ajency statutory missions and national policy);
„• ;i isrrsi"1.; i ^temei^ffiar^"practical means to avoid or minimize
'. '„"!.' I .~,! Tenvir^nmental harm from the selected 'alternative have been
""; ™" ;;:i ''i;* adopted, and if not, why not; "and
f !'^-r^, ^IT^SSiim^ of the monitoring and enforcement program for
any mitigation measures.
i
TOOLS
Westman (1985) reviews the methods and limitations associated
wi|| ignomic approaches to evaluating resources [e.g., cost-
benefit analysis! hypothetical valuation (willingness-to-pay
surveys)]. He notes that although monetary units have a. familiar
meaning to decisionmakers and the public, they are almost
impossible to apply in a universally acceptable way to resources
that are not typically marketed (e.g., human life, bacteria, wind).
Nevertheless, the need for evaluation is inescapable and in the
absence of explicit evaluations, implicit evaluations are performed
:*a*!Jby_ detisionmale'S ' Thus, it "is important to remind decision-
makers of the assumptions and limitations of the evaluation
.J ^i^f^^.^ng used (Westman 1985). The use of sensitivity
K=at^jrsis jjjsee t!eTow)," 553 of.several different evaluation methods
simultaneously, can help to reveal the assumptions and limitations
ol'an analysis (Westman 1985).
Cost-benefit analysis (CBA) among alternatives of projects
is widely used in decisionmaking to determine if the
,econpjnuc benefits of development exceed the costs. The
cosS and' lienefils' icbhsidered include not only the
expenditures and revenues of public sector entities but also
"lienelfti and costs experienced by private businesses and
individuals. It may go beyond consideration of direct
economic issues and also assess indirect effects and
"intangibles" (e.g., aesthetics) but is seldom addresses
"externalities" (e.g., media that act as pollutant sinks such
as atmosphere or watercourses). Thus, although CBA may
be important in decisionmaking it excludes most
environmental costs'!
1.6-3
-------
— Cost-effectiveness analysis focuses on the cost of providing
selected services, or more broadly, of achieving selected
objectives. This technique emphasizes determining the
least cost approach to achieving a given objective and
typically considers a range of alternative actions within the
constraint of a fixed level of resources (Leistritz and
Murdock 1981).
— Results of public opinion polls show that individuals are
deeply concerned about the environment and that people in
both rich and poor nations give priority to environmental
protection over economic growth (Dunlap et al. 1992). At
present, however, scientific dispute and incomplete
knowledge limit our ability to balance scientific, social and
economic factors in decisionmaking. Nevertheless, there
is increasing interest in developing environmental indicators
that translate environmental data into a form that can be
readily understood and used by decisionmakers and the
public (Environment Canada 1991). Efforts have been
made to weight individual (expert-selected) environmental
indicators into composite environmental indices using
expert opinions (Inhaber 1976). More recently, an effort
has been made to use public opinion polls to weight
environmental aggregate indices (Alberti and Parker 1991).
To date, monitoring the status of environmental resources
has increased the volume of environmental data but has
failed to provide decisionmakers and the public with
specific answers to critical questions concerning actual
conditions, trends, and the causes of environmental damage
(Alberti and Parker 1991).
Trade-off analysis typically involves comparison of a set of
alternatives relative to a series of decision factors (Table 5-1).
1.6-4
-------
Table 5-1. Trade-off Matrix. (Source: Canter, L. W., S. F. Atkinson, and
F. L. Leistritz. 1985. Impact of Growth. Lewis Publishers, Inc.,
Chelsea, Michigan.)
" ' . „" ',11 "„ ," "; ' ; "," ' '. ". '" ' • Alternatives
Decision Factors
1234
5
i
1
' 1!
!,! 1 .
Ill ll
to Meeting
Needs and Objective!
Economic Efficiency I"
Social Concern* I
(public preference) "
Eavirpomeaul Impacts ' "" •
-Biophysical ' "' ' "" '" '" '"" "" " "" I
—Cultural
—Socio-economic "
(include health)
The following approaches can be used to complete the trade-off matrix (Canter
et al. 1985):
' "'•''•' •"" ' " "•• • • " '•• «» ••- ' «.'.•«,- -.-,! M,,,, r«...| : ..,,v
— qualitative approach in which descriptive information on
each alternative relative to each decision factor is presented
in the matrix;
— quantitative approach in which quantitative information on
each alternative relative to each decision factor is displayed
., . l|r '""• ' " " ' " "' .1 ••• •' ' • • ' ' 1! '.I .• « , iii| , :-,„ i, -
in the matrix;
— ranking, rating, or scaling approach in which the qualitative
or quantitative information on each alternative is
summarized via the assignment of a rank, or rating, or
scale value relative to each decision factor (the rank, or
rating, or scale value is presented in the matrix);
— weighing approach hi which the importance weight of each
decision factor relative to each other decision factor is
considered, with the resultant discussion of the information
on each alternative (qualitative; quantitative; or ranking,
rating or scaling) being presented in view of the relative
importahce of the decision factors; and
—- weigEng:rahkihg/rating/scaling approach in which the
importance weight for each decision factor is multiplied by
1.6-5
; ,; ll" ;• '"_ "' •'•'' '1. "'! "•. , ,iv ,! •. ' Bl-ULi! , i
•"I I ", ' ' -i, 1 .1, • j. . ,:. .. ,. „, . '" .'. ' '"' '"'
-------
the ranking/rating/scale of each alternative, then the
resulting products for each alternative are summed to
develop an overall composite index or score for each
alternative.
Importance weighing and ranking techniques are described by
Canter et al. (1985). Description and references for the
weighing-scaling/rating/ranking approach are found in Canter
(1979). The problems associated with the development and use of
environmental indicators are discussed by Alberti and Parker
(1991; see Attachment 5.A).
Scaling-weighing or ranking-weighing checklist methodologies
(Canter et al. 1985; Chapter 4.3) involve the assignment of
importance weights to environmental factors and the scaling or
ranking of the impacts for each alternative on each factor.
Comparisons of alternatives can be made through the development
of a product matrix which consists of multiplying importance
weights by the scale or rank for each alternative. Canter et al.
(1985) note that information for these approaches can be based on
impact prediction. They list some structured importance weighing
or ranking techniques as well as suggesting that less-formal
approaches such as scoping can be used as the basis for importance
weighing.
Sensitivity analysis is a technique that identifies the parameter or
variable of a model that is most sensitive to change. It also
provides a measure of the sensitivity of the important variables to
changes in the parameters. For instance, if the endpoint of the
analysis is to predict the effects of herbicide application on insects,
then varying the kind or amounts of herbicides should be reflected
in the response(s) of the insect(s) of interest. Because there is so
much uncertainty associated with prediction in EA (e.g.,
assumptions underlying models, correctness. of input data,
significance of results), examination of the sensitivity of a result
to differing assumptions on ranking and weighing within a
methodology helps modelers and decisionmakers understand how
changes to the input of an analysis affect the predicted impacts of
a proposed action (Jfcrgensen 1991).
ISSUES
In the U.S., there is a minimum 30-day period between publication
of a final EA document and publication of the agency decision on
1.6-6
-------
""1""1 ................... '"'
..... i T, ..... in IK ...... • ...... .••<,
Iiiiiiiiiiiiij; jiiMi^ JnfiiiT ,11 . "• i
• fill1;! ll'iM !l!'" ill;,. I'lj,;,1" iliillii!' ."-,
ill1 in I in
i in in *
'ii iiinniniii ini in,,,: ii nil i ,|||,|i|, '1,1 nun i illl'lln,, mini i'V'111 NHIIII'I m!\r
ifeiques, by their nature, involve some degree of uncertainty.
So along with each attempt to quantify an impact, the EA team
should also quantify the uncertainty of the prediction in terms of
probabilities or "margins of error". Factors contributing to
uncertaintyare:
• 111 i ,,, , ir |
— limits on resources for planning and analysis,
— lack of evidence that a system is sensitive/insensitive to
uncertain input, ' !
inadequate training/understanding of probability and
statistics,
— concern about public acknowledgment of uncertainty, and
— lack of understanding of the importance/consequences of
I! "I IIIII" I II I I III I III 11 II | ||||||||||||| nil 11 i | i|li;1||. hl, S ,7 ^
uncertainty in decisionmaking.
' jii, |;;|;f,!jij| : Hi ^jwpttpa
"'"' ' ' '"
Decisions are not made Soieiy On the basis of environmental
ilium mill 111 iiiiii II1I ill mi in 11 in iiii . , „ X
consequences. There are mteragency agreements; regulatory
constraints, and political realities that must be considered when
selecting a course of action. Moreover, the decisionmaker must
take into account not only the facts, but also people's perceptions.
Once a decision is reached, perhaps with mitigation measures,
there are usually additional responsibilities. These may include
and oversight of plans to reduce conflict (e.g., public
participation in planning, public education, compensation for
™i ;:£;;;;::*::: ':-;' -'i;:- " 'affected groups) and to provide for mitigation and monitoring
(Attachment 6. A).
" "M™..""" ",;:;" !;:;,; ; :;;"!•„ The scope of decisionmaking often is constrained by the nature of
?|ii:^:^fi=« ::! i- :" /'«"^ii,;^~.^.,prpposa[. For instance, there are proposals with:
;":lliSS^ir '" j,,,;,,F> ,'';:•..&$&'Spi"^:;^:^ii(^ja^ysis of alternatives (e'lgJ1, legislatively directed
7^*?|i;'^l!r "J'l^E^lT'i'i.!^^!^"* ^^Kisipni'ln SeY*how-to-do" context),
'i'w^^^^ inni
1.6-7
^i!1!'."' ..:''.'('>•."'>•*"' "'|l"i '' '.'.I'-i.'iiliiiiii'i "ii'miii
"Mil* ~ Sin HIM 1. "ill • .* ."IIIIIIS,,, 'Miiiiij i:M«iJ
lU ihllri'J nilH'! 'lilin;;,,!
"" I"1,!1'111 Jl If "i *ili BOTM^ 4,',' ', T" :,
' -i ii,'i,i,:;,p ••!•!
M :i;l!:ifPi::ii;;;!ii
-Mini ;!| 'r. j. .»• • I'liiri ii-iisii11,,!, ',,':f,tm
A ' .iiiiu^moj! v'liinin,:!' iiii:"1''. hh ''iinn;' iiii!ii|
-------
— limited analysis of alternatives (e.g., the mandated closure
of military bases under the Defense Base Closure and
Realignment Act of 1990), and
— analysis of multiple alternatives where the decisionmaker is
faced with sophisticated EA methods.
LINKAGES
Effective decisionmaldng depends on integration of all of the elements of
EA. During initiation and scoping, issues are raised, alternatives are generated,
and valued resources are identified; public perception of the proposed action and
the potential for controversy are usually detected during these early stages. The
assessment process, beginning with description of the affected environment and
culminating with documentation, provides the decisionmaker with answers to the
following questions:
— what will happen as a result of the project?
— what will be the extent of the changes?
— do the changes matter?
— what can be done about them?
Mitigation is designed to address the last question and although most agencies do
not have requirements for follow-up studies, there is a growing interest in post-
decision analysis.
REFERENCES
Alberti, M., and J. D. Parker. 1991. Indices of environmental quality: the
search for credible measures. Environmental Impact Assessment Review
11:95-101.
Canter, L. W., S. F. Atkinson, and F. L. Leistritz. 1985. Impact of Growth.
Lewis Publishers Inc., Chelsea, Michigan.
Canter, L. W. 1979. Water Resources Assessment - Methodology and
Technology Sourcebook. Ann Arbor Science, Ann Arbor, Michigan.
Dunlap, R. E., G. H. Ballup, Jr., and A. M. Gallup. 1992. The Health of the
Planet Survey. The George H. Gallup International Institute, Princeton,
New Jersey.
Environment Canada. 1991. A Report on Canada's Progress Towards a
National Set of Environmental Indicators. SOE Report Number 91-1.
Environment Canada, Ottawa.
1.6-8
-------
Inhaber, H. 1976. Environmental Indices. Wiley Interscience, New York.
lirgensen, SI E. 1991. Environmental management modeling. In: Introduction
to Environmental Management (eds. P. E. Hansen and S. E. Jorgensen).
Elsevier, New York. 403 pp.
I
Lcistritz, F. L., and S. H. Murdock. 1981. The Socioeconomic Impact of
Resource Development: Methods for Assessment. Westview Press,
Boulder, Colorado. 286 pp.
.'..;.;;„,., I,;,;,; ;; ;;,,,; ,; ;;;,; ; "; ;;:;;;;;;;; ; : |
South Africa Department of Environment Affairs. 1992. Guidelines for Report
Requirements. Department of Environment Affairs, Private Bag X447,
Pretoria 001, Republic of South Africa. (One of six documents in The
Integrated Environmental Management Guideline Series that are available
on request).
ILK I",.],: j '1 '; |IF"'i vi 111 " JlFBij;1 i 'i"'!': ; ] i ;S nB3B,»T , i*'; Wl ,'"' .' '•!( l;'!!
111! a rt II1 'ill I'll 'illiiliJi;:,;!!!!!!''!11':!-! !>„' ' t i !'., aSffll!11*!.!11 i,'1 Ill : '; i1"1' I' .'•",. , i.
iW;..ii!'(.3ia}t ..ILTOiif'TKfti
"i:1 '* 'T^:'1' ^«^lVK'i!;V.V':^^;':^\S^?|
; 'ifX .I!]!'!!! '.'". :>!, :ii II '" ,.(•!,}; ••'..
iil>: ;;;iii "liiiiiiiKii ' ni ,11 i, i ,„ ,, ititi/j11" "it:; n
"'l-ll" " ,, ;'l|| , ' l;![l "'Hi''! ,, .l^i Hi,!, Ij! IIIHj, 'l!|i,
'A'1!, 1,1": iii,,1 ivl ."',:" ' if'l'iiiiii ' '. j1'!"11!''11',:!,,:,;"1,: 1,'iif til
1.6-9
l,1-:!!"!!!'"''!'! :':,:' '",:l,":'ll"i!ii!!']l''.il'1'iilii,"" "t
i'l!!!' 'Ttl.i^W.'i 'i , ,"" 'l.'!"'!" ;.'
" % '"iijILlJi1" I "ill!!:!:!1 , '.i'V,, J",:>:!.!'"
" i1 iwiii 1 !,J n < 'inj; ii";«ir.
•I'jj^K1
,',i iii; I'iii
i: -
. -
""i::!:* 'I"::'''"1:',::'::!:!:*'''
liiii' lift', ', ::tS'!''!'IL.
It1 "I'll I ' !;i"i |
in li .'!"i'"';|lll|i ' _^
y.'Mi'i' .''llll'ijilll''!
-------
1.6-10
-------
Mil
1111
111 ill.
1 1 illlll i
ill Illlll ( 1 111
IN III I I1 iilllli
11 iiiiiii in i ill i
INDICES OF ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY
Ill11 'I
Aibertij"M,""and J.DV Parker".''' 1991. Indices of environmental quality, the search for
credible'measures.' Environmental Impact Assessment Review 11:95-101.
•' I
in 11
r 'I II
i i IP i PI
i n linn
" I I"" I i ",1
1.6.1-1
-------
1.6.1-2
-------
EWWON IMPACT ASSESS REV mi;1l:9S-tM
VIEWPOINT
INDICES OF ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY
THE SEARCH FOR CREDIBLE MEASURES
o\
MARINA ALBERTI*
Massachusetts Institute of Technology
JONATHAN D. PARKER**
University of Cambridge
Informed choices about environmental policy require increasing our capacity to
monitor changes in the status of environmental quality. For example, monitoring
concentrations of toxic substances in the atmosphere, water, soil, and food chain
is crucial in order to prevent adverse health effects. Monitoring alterations in
the productivity and biodiversity of various ecosystems is essential to the antic-
ipation of problems before they reach critical proportions. Moreover, measuring
changes in environmental quality over time gives policymakers a basis for as-
sessing the effectiveness of environmental policies.
However, monitoring environmental change is much more difficult than most
people think. Environmental changes are difficult to interpret without a clear
understanding of how environmental systems work. There are sharp disagree-
ments among scientists and policymakers concerning the best measures and
methods for measuring changes in environmental quality. In this Viewpoint
article, we argue that the measures and methods used to monitor the status of
the environment play an important role in framing environmental problems and
in shaping the way we think about possible solutions. We suggest that the success
AiUreu cotnsfoadtnct to: Marina Albert!. 9-334D. M.I.T., Cambridge, MA 02139.
•Marina Albert! is * Hi.D. candidate it the Department of Urtian Studies md Pluming of Ihe Massachusetts
Institute of Technology. Cambridge. Massachusetts.
"Jonathan D. Patter U • Ph.D. candidate at the Judge Institute of Management Studies, Univenily of Cam-
bridge. England.
C 1991 Elsevler Science Publishing Co.. Inc.
653 Avenue of the Americas. New Yotk. NY 10010
|9J-9255/9l/$J.JO
-------
96
MARINA ALBERT! AND JONATHAN D. PARKER
of environmental monitoring activities and their impact on policy-making depend
above all on our ability to handle disagreement among experts.
The Need for Environmental Indicators
Attempts to monitor the status of environmental resources have increased the
volume of environmental information available. However, they have failed to
provide decision makers and the public with specific answers to critical questions
concerning actual conditions, trends, and the causes of environmental damage.
First, environmental monitoring systems are designed to meet specific regulatory
purposes. They reflect the often fragmented approach of the regulations them-
selves. Secondly, monitoring data gathered by different agencies in different
periods using different methods are not comparable over time. Moreover, raw
data are often too complex to relate to poor or good conditions. Likewise,
fluctuations in physical, biological, and chemical variables are very difficult to
correlate to environmental trends.
To enhance their ability to monitor environmental change, national and in-
ternational organizations have recently specified sets of indicators. At the 1989
economic summit in Paris, the Group of Seven requested that the Organization
for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD), within the context of its
work on integrating environment and economic decision making, examine how
selected environmental indicators could be developed (OECD 1989).
Several OECD countries have allocated substantial economic resources to set
up environmental monitoring systems and to produce national environmental
statistics. Currently, the Office of Research and Development of the U.S. En-
vironmental Protection Agency (EPA) is developing a monitoring system to
assess and document the changing condition of national ecological resources
(US EPA 1990a). The Canadian federal government is currently developing a
computerized environmental information system for specifying national and large-
scale regional environmental indicators. Several European countries, such as
France, the Netherlands, the Federal Republic of Germany, Denmark, and the
United Kingdom, who already produce regular reports on the state of the en-
vironment, have recently tried to upgrade existing environmental statistics. As
part of Scandinavian environmental cooperation among Denmark, Finland, Ice-
land, Norway, and Sweden the Integrated Monitoring Programme was begun in
Finland in 1985.
Currently, the OECD is developing environmental indicators in three specific
areas: 1) indicators for reporting on environmental conditions and trends, 2)
indicators for integrating environmental considerations into sectoral decision-
making, and 3) indicators for incorporating natural resources into overall eco-
nomic accounts. These indicators will be used to monitor the state of the en-
vironment and its evolution over time; evaluate the performance of projects,
progr-s, and plans; and communicate with the public and among decision
maf BCD I991a, 199lb).
INDICES OF ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY
Measuring Environmental Quality
The status of environmental resources can best be described through using phys-
ical, chemical, or biological variables. These variables in turn are used to con-
struct indicators of environmental change of various kinds. Indicators of air
quality, for example, are measures of the concentrations of air pollutants. In-
dicators of surface water quality consolidate changes in several variables such
as pH, dissolved oxygen, suspended solids, etc. The process of designing indices
of environmental quality implies simplification and the use of subjective judg-
ment.
Detecting variations in these indicators at local, regional, and national levels
is relatively simple. However, the choice of variables, the construction of in-
dicators, and the selection of measurement methods are critical. While some
environmental phenomena are relatively well understood, others are still unclear.
Incomplete and inadequate choice concerning indicators and measurement meth-
ods can lead to wrong interpretations.
The definition of environmental "indicators" and "indices" was taken up in a
exchange of views between Wayne Ott and Herbert Inhaber (Ott and Inhaber
1979) in the 1970s. Inhaber states, "Environmental indicators provide infor-
mation about the state of the environment, not obtainable in other ways" (Inhaber
1976). In his view the development of an environmental index is aimed at
reducing a large amount of unrelated data to a single measure. He defines an
index as "the comparison of a quantity to a scientific or arbitrary standards"
(Inhaber 1976). Ott prefers to define an indicator as a mathematical function
based on one pollutant variable (for example, the sulfur dioxide concentration)
and an index as a mathematical function based on two or more pollutant variables
(Ott 1978).
The EPA Environmental Monitoring and Assessment Program (EMAP) (see
US EPA I990a) defines an environmental indicator as "a characteristic of the
environment that, when measured, quantifies the magnitude of stress, habitat
characteristics, degree of exposure to the stressor, or degree of ecological re-
sponse to the exposure" (US EPA I990b). The EPA defines an environmental
index as a mathematical aggregation of indicators or metrics. One example is
the Index of Biotic Integrity (IBI), which combines several metrics describing
fish community structure, incidence of pathology, population sizes, and other
characteristics" (US EPA I990b), proposed by the EPA to assess the quality of
streams.
Scientific Controversies
Environmental indicators and indices are essential to the development of envi-
ronmental statistics. Yet, the task is not straightforward. Disagreement persists
among experts concerning appropriate definitions. Controversies exist within and
across different disciplines. Geologists express the conditions of environmental
-------
Kh! , \t If '(i &
WMli hi '
9'S
MARINA ALBERT! AND JONATHAN D, PARKER
resources in terms of ecological integrity and assess them on the basis of observed
changes in ecological attributes. Experts disagree on (he definition of ecological
integrity and on the characterization of critical conditions.
The basic controversy between advocates and opponents of environmental
indices concerns the distortion that can occur in the simplification process implied
by aggregating environmental variables into one single value. Advocates of
environmental indices maintain that, while imperfect, measures of environmental
quality are useful tools and that some distortion is acceptable. The opponents
reject these possible distortions and warn about misleading the users of these
measures.
:uv
The EPA Environmental Monitoring and Assessment Program ;
The environmental indicators used in the EMAP are being developed for six
ecological resources categories: near-coastal waters, inland surface waters, wet-
lands, forests, arid lands, and agroecosystems. The EMAP strategy identifies i
three main categories of indicators: 1) response indicators, 2) exposure or habitat!
indicators, and 3) stressor indicators (US EPA 1990a). :
Response indicators are characteristics of the environment measured to provide !
evidence of the overall biological conditions of resources. They quantify the *
response of ecosystems to anthropogenic stress by measuring organisms, pop- >
ulations, communities, and ecosystems processes. For example, one response j
indicator for arid land is soil erosion; for inland surface water an important;
indicator is the Fish Index of Biotic Integrity. I
Exposure or habitat indicators may be used to diagnose and measure ecosystem ;
exposure to pollutants and habitat degradation. Exposure indicators are measures '
of the occurrence or magnitude of ecosystems exposure to physical, chemical, J
and biological stress (i.e., ambient pollutant concentration). Habitat indicators:
are physical attributes that characterize conditions necessary to support an or-;
ganism, population, or community (i.e., abundance and density of key physical
features). "
Stressor indicators measure socioeconomic, demographic, and natural pro-
cesses which cause changes in exposure and habitat conditions and are indicative
of environmental stress. They include hazard indicators (e.g., emissions of air-
pollutants), management indicators (e.g., incidence of dredging and filling ac-
tivities), and natural process indicators (e.g., natural climatic fluctuations). ,
EMAP indicators are designed to answer critical questions such as: 1) What!
is the current status, extent, and geographic distribution of our ecological re-
sources? 2) What proportions of these resources are degrading or improving,
where, and at what rate? 3) What are the likely causes of adverse effects? and
4) Are adversely affected ecosystems responding as expected to control and
mitigation programs (US EPA I990b)?
Wm •!! '!M
4 Mi!
WDK3S OF EHVmONMiENTAL QUALITY
99
i Si
I = « :
The EPA strategy of selecting indicators thai will help to answers these specific
questions does not address the problem of subjective judgment, The review
process for selecting indicators includes several steps by which a large number
of experts will evaluate expected and actual performance of proposed indicators
and will specify those that mutch selected desirable criteria. How controversies
will be solved is not clear.
The EPA's Office of Research and Development claims that EMAP scientists
"will answer these questions by defining and implementing over the next five
years integrated monitoring networks ..." (US EPA I990b). The EPA insists
also that "EMAP networks will use a statistically based sampling design to
provide unbiased estimates with quantifiable confidence limits over regional and
national scales for periods of years and decades" (US EPA I990b).
Although the EPA approach is extremely well structured and responds to
accepted statistical principles, it does not address the critical question of how
best to resolve the scientific and political controversies involved in the choice
of indicators. We argue that there is no universal method for determining changes
in environmental quality, likely causes of adverse effects, or satisfactory re-
sponses. Environmental quality is a mixture of both tangibles (such as the con-
centration levels of chemical substances in the atmosphere) and intangibles (such
as an acceptable level of air quality for the exposed population and the envi-
ronment). Conflicts will continue to exist.
The Search for Credible Measures
The intended purposes of measuring environmental changes is to inform policy-
making. Therefore, a measure of its success is the impact of monitoring activities
on designing and adjusting environmental policies at the national, regional, and
local levels to meet new environmental emergencies and priorities.
Compared with economic and social indicators, environmental indicators have
little direct impact on environmental policy and even less impact on sectoral or
economic policies. Economic statistics are well developed worldwide. While the
development of economic indicators has been characterized by enormous con-
troversies, several economic indices such as Gross National Product (GNP) and
the price indices are recognized worldwide as measures of economic wealth.*
These two economic indices are generally used as the basis for economic policy-
making.
Some important insights into the present debate on environmental indicators
may be gained by examining the controversial history of social indicators. While
social indicators now significantly influence social and economic policies, the
development of these indices was characterized by great controversies concerning'
cause-and-effect relationships. A similar pattern of controversy can be observed
in the attempts to define indicators of environmental quality, particularly quality-
of-life indices (Carley 1981). Beesley and Russwurm contend that "social in-
-------
100
MARINA ALBERT! AND JONATHAN D. PARKER
dicators are embedded within a political and value judgment reality which may
pose problems in their design and use" (Beesley and Russwurm 1990). Also, it
is not always possible to establish relationships between the objective social
indicators and the social concepts that they are supposed to measure. This has
provoked considerable interest in searching for subjective social indicators which
might be particularly useful in highlighting social concerns and problems (Bees-
ley and Russwurm 1990). However, these attempts lack the "official" seal of
approval that objective indicators carry (Carley 1981).
Similar concerns emerge regarding the attempts to incorporate subjective judg-
ment in the development of aggregate environmental indices. Efforts have been
made to weight individual (expert-selected) environmental indicators into com-
posite environmental indices using expert opinions. These include the work of
Inhaber for Canada (Inhaber 1976) and those applying the Delphi technique.
Some current work uses public opinion polls to weight environmental indicators
in forming aggregate indices such as Hope, Parker, and Peake have done for
the United Kingdom (Hope and Parker 1990; Hope, Parker, and Peake 1990).
These approaches underscore the important role of social considerations in de-
veloping such measures.
ON
Conclusions
Indicators of environmental quality will not influence the policy-making process
unless there is agreement on the choice and the design of such measures. As
Judith Innes has suggested for social indicators, "the intended purpose of de-
veloping measurements to be used in the policy-making process has to play a
role in the process of designing them" (Innes 1975). In her analysis of social
indicators and public policy she maintains that the things we measure and the
way we measure them contribute to the formation of norms and goals.
We suggest that measurement is an integral part of the process of identifying
problems as well as of searching for solutions. Our increased capacity to collect,
analyze, and manage information will not have an impact on policy-making
unless we are more careful about the information we select. Scientific disputes
and incomplete knowledge have serious implications for policy decisions. Fur-
thermore, the serious social implications of irreversible environmental changes
underscore the responsibility of the scientific community to take part in the
policy-making process. Designing appropriate measures to monitor environ-
mental problems requires the ability to balance scientific, social, and political
considerations in the process of designing and applying these measures. This
process will inevitably reflect tradeoffs between political and social actors. Ef-
fective and comprehensive policy making requires increased sophistication in
assessing conflicts between scientific experts.
INDICES OF ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY
References
Albert!, M. 1990. Environmental indices. Ambitnte Italia. Milan: Mondadori.
Beesley, K.B., and Russwurm, L.H. 1990. Social indicators and quality of life research'
Toward synthesis. Environments 20(1): 22-39.
Carley, M. 1981. Social Measurements and Social Indicators. London: Allen & Unwin.
Commission of the European Communities (CEC). 1990. Council Directive, 7 June 1990
on the freedom of access to information on the environment. Official Journal of the
European Communities No. L 158/56-58. 23-6-1990.
Innes J. 1975. Social Indicators and Public Policy. New York: Elsevier.
Hope, C.W., Parker, J.D.E. 1990. Environmental information for all-the need for a
Monthly Index. Energy Policy 18(4):3I2-3I9 (May 1990).
Hope, C.W., Parker, J.D.E., and Peake, S. 1990. A pilot index for the United Kingdom.
Management Studies Research Paper, University of Cambridge, 10/90.
Inhaber, H. 1976. Environmental Indices. New York: Wiley Interscience.
Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD). 1989. Summary
Conclusions of the OECD Workshop on Environmental Indicators. Dec 4-5 Paris-
OECD.
Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD). I99la. The State of
the Environment. Paris.
Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD). I99lb. Environ-
mental Indicators—a preliminary set. Paris.
Oil, W. 1979. Environmental Indices: Theory and Practice. Ann Arbor. MI: Ann Arbor
Science Publishers.
Ott, W., Inhaber, H. 1979. Discussion on Canadian Air Quality. Atmospheric Environ-
ment 2:428-429.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (US EPA) I990a. Environmental Monitoring and
Assessment Program. Office of Modeling, Monitoring Systems and Quality Assurance
Washington DC: EPA.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (US EPA) 1990. Ecological Indicators for the
Environmental Monitoring and Assessment Program. Atmospheric Research and Ex-
posure Assessment Laboratory. Research Triangle Park, NC: EPA.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (US EPA) I990c. International Symposium on
Ecological Indicators. Conference Proceedings, 15-19 October 1990. Fort Lauderdale
PL.
-------
(I1 III
II I 111 I
• ill
i III l 1
lllilW III 11 III III i 111 11
(111 Ill
SECTION 1.7
FOLLOW-UP
ill n
i i i1
I I
iii
-------
-------
Ill II I III
FOLLOW-UP
•frit
HP I'!1!,1!1'
, *: ,!*1
:* !;:!' .ili..
Post-decision analyses (PDA) are environmental studies (i.e., data
collection and evaluation) undertaken during and following the implementation
phases of an activity after the decision to proceed has been made. They are also
known as follow-up studies and sometimes as environmental monitoring or audits.
•,,;;Tnere is no universally accepted set of principles defining an approach to PDA
,»«' .iiiih ;ji«,i "in,111 a , (iiii i .1 ili ijjSXi —.a ,, * * . . .
(Davies and Sadler 1990). The analyses may be undertaken prior to construction,
^^g construction or operation, and at the time of abandonment to determine if
the project was carried out as planned in the EA documentation, to determine the
adequacy of impact prediction methods, to ensure accordance with regulatory
requirements and/or with terms imposed by EA documentation for mitigation or
monitoring, to modify mitigation measures if needed, to learn from the particular
activity, and to prevent irreversible environmental damage (United Nations 1990).
|| is particularly important for activities that involve new technologies.
For purposes of this sourcebook, PDA is a generic term for a wide-range
of activities that can occur after a decision is made. The focus can be on
scientific, social and technical issues and also those dealing with procedural and
administrative matters. Related terms such as monitoring (Canter 1993) and
auditing (Culfiane 19^3) are harrower in concept. For instance, compliance
r^i^mtojnng is designed to ensure that regulatory requirements are observed and
standards are met. Audits are independent and objective examinations of
'•«"« (•»»»! . . - r. i" , • • . ' •"•«. : ...
compliance with legal requirements, internal policies and/or accepted practices.
^r^oweverj the needs and tools discussed in this section are generally applicable
"Li to' any'""of these'aclivities^Components within a broad definition of PDA include
35 appropriate:
If:: :::,
planning the collection of data to meet specific objectives
and environmental information needs;
designing monitoring systems and studies;
selecting sampling sites;
collecting and handling samples-
laboratory analysis;
reporting and storing the data;
assuring the quality of the data; and
analyzing, interpreting, and making the data available for
subsequent decisionmaking.
1.7-1
iil|ii( i ill mil 11
-------
NEEDS
The purpose of PDA must be carefully defined and the planning
for PDA must be an integral part of the EA process. The focus of
PDA is usually on: issues of concern and valued resources for
which there is insufficient information; monitoring compliance
with regulatory requirements and agreed upon conditions; and
evaluating proper and cost-effective management. A decision on
a PDA plan should be made at the time that a decision is made
regarding the project.
There must be a commitment to the PDA program at all levels of
management, including adequate financial support. Roles and
responsibilities must be defined for the proponent, other
government agencies, scientific and technical advisors, and the
public early in the EA planning process. Furthermore, provisions
must be made for:
— management responses to PDA findings, including how to
handle environmental surprises (i.e., unanticipated
impacts);
— revision of mitigation or monitoring if it is found to be
inadequate or unnecessary;
— ending the program if and when it is no longer needed.
Independent design and implementation of the PDA program is
encouraged, particularly for those areas of the program that are
sensitive and for which work done by the proponent may not be
regarded as credible by the public.
Monitoring programs are expensive to plan and implement; thus
every effort should be made to coordinate with and utilize
routinely collected data from ongoing monitoring programs as
appropriate. Various government agencies and the private sector
collect data which once identified can be aggregated and
interpreted relative to the particular area of interest (Attachment
4.A). There probably never is enough information collected to
thoroughly test PDA hypotheses. Therefore, it is usually
necessary for professionals to extrapolate from monitoring data to
arrive at an "educated best-guess".
Periodic evaluation of PDA data and preparation of an annual
report for distribution to interested and affected publics.
1.7-2
-------
A review of 11 case studies (United Nations 1990) showed four
important needs for PDA. These include:
development during EA planning of verifiable hypotheses
for testing during PDA;
collection of relevant baseline data for interpretation of
subsequent monitoring data and testing of impact prediction
I" hypotheses; ' ' "
careful documentation throughout projects to lessen effects
of personnel turnover; arid
use of appropriate statistical methods to test hypotheses so
that effects of projects can be satisfactorily isolated from
other environmental effects.
••'llsiSW ! , 'l":iiil>:il
TOOLS
. |.
1 Monitoring (i.e., the systematic collection of data through a series of
repetitive measures) is usually an essential component of PDA. The
detailed means of monitoring and the issues monitored will vary greatly
depending on the proposed activity (ORNL 1978; U.S. EPA 1989; ASTM
1992; ANSI 1982; Canter 1993). In general, methods for assessing
adverse effects in freshwater systems are well developed while methods
for assessing adverse gffg^ ^ terrestrial systems are less well developed.
Most PDA incorporates one or more of the following categories of
monitoring:
; ; • ... • i
Compliance Monitoring. Periodic sampling and/or continuous
measurement of levels of waste discharge, emissions or
introductions to determine that regulatory conditions and/or
staiKj^|s ^ gjj^j• pjagg^g"'are* me|; • • •" • • • •"
- Effects Monitoring. Measurement of environmental parameters
1 . If! II!1;!1: t En •[ it, r j , „ £ .
during construction and/or operation to detect changes in the
parameters which can be attributed to the project or to test
predictions of an EA and/or the effectiveness of mitigation
measures. "
- Internal Audits. A methodological examination (sometimes
J^ *" ,r ,;,;,,;"" 'i^n^lyjng analyses and tests) and confirmation of local procedures
••»« ii--;«—- ;;=;:.. -.^$iu| practices ieadmg to verification of compliance with legal
s? s^iJS&.ii/^a! reqliirements'^' internal policies, and/or accepted practices.
miy'*J.;-k "" 11! ij^pggjQjj ^g Surveillance. Depending upon the purpose of
Si*;;/' |^^ or inadequate, the analysis can be
1.7-3
-------
based on less quantitative methods such as inspection and
surveillance to determine adherence to environmental operating
conditions (e.g., road or pipeline construction).
Negotiation is currently seen as a promising tool in the design of
monitoring programs, particularly for resource development activities. It
creates a forum where affected interests can deal directly with
disagreements over what should be monitored and how those things should
be assessed and dealt with. Rolf (Attachment 6. A) notes three particularly
important factors with respect to negotiating a monitoring program:
symmetry of power and resources, a multiple issue agenda, and a
mechanism for resolving disputes. She argues that a negotiated
monitoring program leads to better decisions, fairness, and better
implementation.
ISSUES
• Space and time coordination of data collection is necessary to
eliminate variation in analytical results associated with differences
in geographical regions and changes in biota and pollutants over
time.
• Although in the U.S., CEQ regulations require federal agencies to
monitor the effects of proposed mitigation measures in "important
cases" and to report on the progress of such mitigation measures
to other agencies and the public on request, in practice, this
provision has not been enforced. Currently, except for The
Netherlands, there is a lack of formal PDA in most countries. As
a result, there is little opportunity to learn from and apply the
experience to subsequent activity. Sadler (1988) notes that the
lack of PDA stems from jurisdictional fragmentation (in Canada),
ambiguous mandates, and insufficient resources.
s,
In cases where PDAs were done, Bisset and Tomlinson (1988)
note that only 12 percent of all predictions could be audited; of the
predictions tested about half were inaccurate. There was a
tendency for the inaccurate predictions to indicate impacts which
subsequently did not occur. They found that the nature of EA
documents makes it difficult to audit the predicted impacts of a
development for these reasons:
predictions are expressed in vague, imprecise language;
1,7-4
-------
' iiiiiiir is ,
|i|ii,ii|'ii •"!":!'" ,''"i"' in1"'
i i| ill I"
111 III
impact predictions are not phased in a way that allows
auditing (e.g., design changes can eliminate the predicted
impact); and
monitoring programs often do not provide the data needed
to allow predictions to be tested in a scientifically
acceptable way.
in i 111 ill in i i I in MI in i i i • |B f1 ! **''••
Bisset and Tomlinspn (1988) suggest that decisionmakers do not
11nir iiiiiiiiiiiii'isiiiiiiiiiriiii'iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiirijpnini:'!;.:!!!,!,i™!'iiSfiiiiiiiRiiiiiiiiii #::!iiiiiwsA '- ^»
like to have their decisions questioned by subsequent
investigations. Thus, it is important that PDA is an integral part
of EA documentation with the stated goal of not questioning the
jatipnalg of the decisionmaker but rathej, of determining the
qualiiy of the information in the EA document. Decisionmakers
need to be convinced that PDA will result in better information for
decisionmaking (i.e., less uncertainty), better EA at less cost, and
greater public confidence in the project.
The PDA should focus on important issues and impacts for which
there are insufficient information. Identification of these issues
and impacts and their priorities occurs during the EA process and
a PDA plan, commensurate with their complexity and uncertainty,
should be prepared as an integral part of the EA process.
PDA developed in response to public concerns must be credible,
and the proponent must be willing to respond even to unacceptable
results.
Questions to consider in relation to EA and PDA might include:
; """ '" ' I
were the important project-related impacts and mitigation
responses identified accurately in the EA?
- did the EA process provide sound, relevant, and focused
information concerning project effects and their
implications? i ,
were there clear levels of confidence and significance
placed on the predictions?
were the cumulative and secondary impacts traced
properly?
IIIIIIIIIIIII
LINKAGES
For PDA to provide useful feedback for decisionmaking. it must be based
on issues identified during initiation and scoping. The assessment process must
result in testable hypotheses based on important issues. Mitigation and
1.7-5
-------
monitoring programs must be designed to ensure that requisite data are available
for testing the hypothesis. Collection, evaluation, and publication of the results
of PDAs can contribute to reducing uncertainty in decisionmaking and
enhancement of agency credibility.
REFERENCES
American National Standards Institute (ANSI). 1992. American National
Standard for Surveys of Terrestrial Ecology Needed to License Thermal
Power Plants. ANSI/ANS-18.5-1982. Published by the American
Nuclear Society, 555 North Kensington Avenue, LaGrange Park, Illinois
60525. 26pp.
American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM). 1992. Annual Book of
ASTM Standards, Section II, Water and Environmental Technology.
Available from ASTM, 1916 Race Street, Philadelphia, PA 19103-1187.
1426 pp.
Bisset, R., and P. Tomlinson. 1988. Monitoring and auditing of impacts. In:
Environmental Impact Assessment (ed. P. Wathern). Unwin Hyman,
Boston. 332 pp.
Bisset, R. 1980. Problems and issues in the implementation of EA audits.
Environmental Impact Assessment Review 1:379-395.
Canter, L. W. 1993. The role of environmental monitoring in responsible
project management. The Environmental Professional 15:76-87.
Culhane, F. J. 1993. Post-EIS environmental auditing: a first step to making
rational environmental assessment a reality. The Environmental
Professional 15:66-75.
Davies, M., and B. Sadler. 1990. Post-project Analysis and the Improvement
of Guidelines for Environmental Monitoring and Audit. Report EPS
6/FA/l. Environment Canada, Ottawa, Ontario K1A OH3.
Graves, B. M., and P. L. Dittberner. 1986. Variables for Monitoring Aquatic
and Terrestrial Environments. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Biological
Report 86 (5). 55 pp.
Marcus, L. G. 1979. A Methodology for Post-EIS (Environmental Impact
Statement) Monitoring. U.S. Department of the Interior, Geological
Survey Circular 782.
1.7-6
-------
ma &TR8K mm m&
» •
w.:' f • . « ...... s »»
- • -:, -.. Oak WdgeN^orS'f^oratory!! 1978.' Environmental Mbnitonf
Coal InversionHcifities;ORNL-5319 Special. Available from the
iRational Technical Information Service. U.S. Department of Commerce,
5285 Port Royal Road, Springfield, Virginia 22161.
Rolf, C. A. Negotiating a monitoring program. 1986. Impact Assessment
Bulletin 4:99-109.
Sadler, B. 1988. The evaluation of assessment: post-EIS research and process
developrnenC In: BnvircHriimentel Impact Assessment (ed. P. Wathern).
Unwin Hyman," Boston. 332 pp.
Sigal, L. L., arid S'."W. Siiter'nr 1987. Evaluation of methods for determining
adverse impacts of air pollution on terrestrial ecosystems. Environmental
Management 1 1:675-694.
United Nations Economic Commission for Europe. 1990. Post-Project Analysis
in Sivu^mental jjnp^ct Assessment, ECE/ENVWA/11. 54 pp.
Available froin the United Nations, Sales Section, New York.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1989. Ecological Assessment of
Hazardous Waste Sites: A Field and Laboratory Reference. EPA/600/3-
89/013.
mw a
1.7-7
' ~ "'
:?iffli. -;.!•; iii' iff ..... "
II' 1
"I", 111
I III
'•I
ill
-------
1.7-8
-------
"• iiBiiiii, iw'si ',i m i iiiiii'i f(in EMMT *HF ii'Jiii w:, <:>:>
•'ill liKiii:!!
iGOTIATING A MONITORING PROGRAM
Sim ji. • F : wdaiMM: f,!"»(«ris1:1*:. i itf> f i'Mi1 i;f 'ism -wfie-iiitiftit * in :'3iii«s 'cmnis* IB i":'! Ji ifiifif iis1
\1SSl] ::;'i-:<;:S!~:ililr
i''it ..... •>'•'• ........ ..... li ........ ": \-f.f.- ..... - ...... ' il'T, J1 ........ lilll'W*' "'ill"' .• .......... ....... 1:1! ..... Ill; 111 11(11 ..... Ill ...... II 111
,: C. ........ A. ......... Negotiating a monitoring program. 1986. Impact Assessment BuUetin
: ..... ''":'-- -''- ' ....... -"-" .......... 4:99-109. [[[
,| I1! A, ,, i! IK'IIIII !'
!! '" "• !l|li ..... uwi:1 ami ..... ri1'1'* ' . •
'il, lihv'11 ;;iiii" T 'liff'tMi ' ,'i1 Elm 'i I1. «, '"''H, pwj ii I, iiiiiiii iiiiiii iiiiiiiiiii'iiii ;,,i i,;' ,,i'. i"1' 11; ,,i, "li1 MMy l|; -MI; i •"' ^' |ll! .:'.' »» inii"11 , SIP" "in I'l'inn'i'iiiiiiiiiii ''
IfiiPE,! f ''It !;'* 'ii« t «-; lit' -.I," *; ii: :!J.it* , III,! ilHIlt ;"'J ,,1: i ill '.;..{•. • ill;.?,,:, :':,', • '•''?' I : :,l,,-' , „,' • i,.;':, •; L,"! Jif >, !••' I Ili'l, i; ';;,' j1:^--,;!'Jf4!. .'
ii !!|lllli;ilt,;«iL, .'ifl '1'I
,il:ll¥.ilill!i!,!iili:.:irl,|,ll:i I'll; 'til", , !'
i , • ;:::i;ii ...... ' 1(1 jji'* . ,, M ....... is1*- , iFii iiiiiL ': k ,T s'lf .
',,,;! Jl'illili ......... "1,1 11!1!;;: I ..... nil, ..... lllpFII'l ,' ,' j" ....... II,. ........ I
..... A ...... : , .r" : , *; ; n,< y i "fsi ,v* ;- i ..... :<- '• f ",.: •*¥> •», : .- :•
', ..... :, III"'!!* ...... JIWll:1, (II ...... 'Jlfel'l '"': f ....... ,l» ....... < M ....... '' r .1, ........ In : 'il'll'i ....... i.-i'ilillp ..... 'A !.;!,
(••iji'i.l. "if, r'.';•• "i,;::"1-!!''
lil"""-;1"' '.!*,'•. ' .fir11'1:'i-i
• ;• iiiiirwi
' '-,1 •I11"'""1'', 'I" >! if3:'1!1''!11'1-' .i™1!!'!'1';'!' '*'
,ji, • ' 'i, ,ii, . :ii'iiiiii , '''I] i;, '; ..^"iijiii
' -"i;';: 't ktiif..' "ifiii;' • •.•!'
' I ,,'i," III „ 'III."'ill,i III,11 III. I '!
11 Illllllll1
HI I | |ll" (I| ,1
1 , ,, iiiiiiii HI; i; 'jii'iiiiniyijiiiriii, :iiiii'iii|ii,iii,,, ,"111111"'', 'ii's: "!" iH'ii':1!,)'1 "i iintii,,,!,!",! "ji,1,,! , ' inv,i v "„ "i,,i ,,„ ii v , ,, ,'„!' , i,.1.,|i",i, i,i',,,;,, .ii1"1!'1,! ', a1,', V:,,: •
'•I, in, , , i , , mn;-Mn;t FB! s «nt».JWM1 i. :r>. ft „ -"'it >•• ;, "i ;ri,,'i if i -, '•:" ••• :> • i K-n'ii" '-,«-,f, "-i >' " I*!.1*
'in, pi ',i, ii',, iiiiirui!' ri:, ,v,,, .'I'ljiiniti, iii r ',1'Eii iiiraiiiii1 ' i, i" i.1* ,,i ' i« '"i,,,ir ,,,,i '"nr , ,,'jiiii,111!,1!,! i'n.,,111, ' ': " ,' i:::'t i" '.n:,1 , .''fi'; .i/ii ."i
'siy'iiili'liii, "'i B;; "";„,;i ; iiiiiiii:, („;» n.j, ;1,,iiinii,1l!l,;, Iliilllill! m :"" ';|il ,!.fV .*W-i I ,11. ! -1 LT.'Sii"!1 i:1"1 '„!,', ,,:,'' ! >s,"tfS W >S(! ^,*JTu ' i
in in aaiiiHii i; lEiiii" , I/HIK, ii mi1 f in ..... iiiiui ..... Liiiiii ...... iLiinno j: <"'" 1,11', ..... HI ..... ,::•'
,'H1 ....... is ";;!':!! ........ I'niiiiii1" n .........
vr'":;i!ii l^::l^lV,lll,W!!!!li 'i-lilft'iil.'1111'' iiiv
! It; ..... iiir . ...... i It
& ..... ;•
. ill!- M 'MS ; ;p^
"',! : i'1:;,,,;' i,:', I,,;1, i'i,,- "Mi Ill «ff.;'
.li,,,. 'HI1 ..... If ', ..... '..fl'ii"!' ,, Ji' ,'!.'•
• I v '"?', *ii:i'" ..... ! ' < ..... ..ii': 4"' i':!';;' ....... ,',"
I ' .ifiji , 'Mi M; „" " ",,;|ii!! jw,!,, ,',,,',i|i : ,
,'i 'H*' X& •' 'fW"!1:1!1'-1 HiJ-f
Illilill
'" ''"i i"in ffl. ...... , Si.llllllllirl1,' J'*",''!"!,;, ,,.
-------
1.7.1-2
-------
I! '
lj- i
|=
J
ft "
1. -
II
i-.
II i
I
III
Arc' -^logical Resource Impact
[40J Ueko, P.J., "Australian Academic Archaeology: Aboriginal; Tran«-s
formation of Its Aims and Practices." Australian Archaeology, 1983,
10:11-38. : =
•
(41) Wells, Katie, John Tallow, Esther Tnilfeathers and Gerald Conaty,1
"Archaeological Research on the Blood Reserve. Alberta Archaeological
Review No. 9:3-16, 1984.
|42| Wildesen, Leslie 1C., "The Study of Impacts on Archaeological Sites."
In Advances in Method and Archaeological Theory, volume 5. Michael
B. Schiller (ed), pp. 59-96. Academic Press, New York, 1982.
|43] Winter, Joseph C., "Indian Heritage Preservation and Archaeolo-
gists." Am. Ant. 45:121-131, 1980.
NEGOTIATING A MONITORING PROGRAM
Carol; Anne Rolf*
INTRODUCTION
In February 1981, Western Fuels-Utah Inc. filed an application to de-
velop a 1.4 million tons per year coal mine in Rio Blanco County, Colorado,_
in order to supply a 400 megawatt power plant 33 miles away in Bonanza,
Utah.1 Rio Blanco County was primarily an agriculture-based economy
with oil shale potential and a fairly sparse population of about 3,200 peo-
ple who would experience the most direct impacts of mine construction
and operation.
As is true with many instances of large scale resource projects, resi-
dents and local government officials recognized the potential benefits of
development, but they were concerned that negative impacts would im-
pose unacceptable burdens and disruptions upon both the existing and
project-related population. There was particular concern that locating
the power plant across the state line denied Rio Blanco County access to
tax revenues which would offset the increased costs of providing hard and
soft public services.* _
In June 1981, Western Fuels-Utah and nine special districts in Rio
Blanco County signed a comprehensive socioeconomic impact mitigation
agreement worth $15 million in front end payments. Unlike many other
mitigation and compensation agreements, it included provisions to de-
•Qrtduate School of Public Policy, UC - Berkeley, Vancouver, B.C. V83 1E9
'Thli CM« u well M other caiei of American experience Is annlywd In Rolf, C.A.
Aforubtory Negotiation: A Mearw to Determine Mitigation and Comftruation m Ike Conlerf
«/Enerw D.telopnwn*. Unlv«r.lly of California, Berkeley: unpubllih.d mailer •
'Interview: Mirk Bubrlikl, County Impact Coordinator, Rio Blanco Cmmt
Colorado.
tounty,
-------
Negotiating a Monitoring Program
100
velop and implement a monitoring program. The detail* of this program
were subsequently renegotiated over an 11 month period in 1983.3
This paper is about negotiating monitoring programs, which aspects
of the Colorado experience might be transferable to places such as the
Beaufort Region in the NWT, and the kinds of issues which must be
considered if a negotiation policy were adopted.
REASONS FOR NEGOTIATION
The value of impact monitoring is not in dispute. At the conceptual
level at least, there is considerable consensus as to why monitoring is
generally a good idea. Unfortunately, if not unexpectedly, monitoring
practices to date appear to fall rather short of their theoretical promise.
Whatever factors may contribute to this shortfall, it is clear from experi-
ence that no one monitoring model exist* which can be universally applied
to resource development.4 In other words each monitoring program must
be tailor-made to suit its particular requirements and circumstances. In
this light, the problem of designing and implementing a monitoring model
may be recast as a problem of process: how should we go about the design-
ing and implementing? One answer to this question is to use negotiation.
Negotiation is a particularly apt tailoring process if the problem ii
represented as a game. More specifically, it is not the kind of game where
winners are possible only when others lose: a zero-sum game. It is, in-
stead, a game where there are common interests as well as value conflict.6
'Interview: Reid Haughty, County Impact Coordinator, Rio Blanco County,
Colorado.
4See for example, Bankei, N. tt Thompson, A It. Monitoring for Impact Antiimcnt ant
Management: An Analyiii of the Legal and Admniftntive framework, University of British
Columbia: Westwater Research Centre, I960; Cnrley, M. Cumulative Soeioeeonomit
Monitoring: Iituet and Indicator! for Canada'n Beaufort Region. Prepared for Energy,
Mines and Resources Secretnriat, G.N.W.T. and The Northern Economic Planning
Branch, .Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development, March 1084;
Velt, S. Presentation to Workshop on Cumulative Socloeconomlc Monitoring for th*
Beaufort Region. Sponsored by Energy Mines and Resources Secretariat, G.N.W.T.,
June 11-12,1084.
'Thomas Schilling calls this co-existence of value conflict with common Interests a
"mixed-motive game" and suggested that what would be rational strategic behavior
on the part of those involved in a tero-stim game would be Irrational In the mixed-
mo*' •«. See The Strategy of Conflict, Cambridge, Mois: Harvard University Press,
I'
101
C. A. Rolf
In this kind of game, winning means" ...gaining relative to one's own value
system..." ° and bargaining or negotiation is one of the ways of doing
80. The argument here is that a negotiated monitoring program leads to
higher quality decisions, is fair, and will get implemented.
1. Better Decisions: In a related vein, impact monitoring may be
thought of as a decision-making process. Because of the number of deci-
sions which cannot he or are not made at the time a project is approved,
monitoring and impact management has, in fact, been referred to as a
process of postponed decision-making.7 Whatever the timing, these de-
cisions must be made under a considerable degree of uncertainty, when
information is often inadequate, unavailable or unobtainable and when
there may be conflict over both values and facts.
One illustration of the need to resolve ostensibly factual controversy
in an environmental context comes from Wisconsin where there has been
in effort to implement a new pollution control policy for the Fox River.8
Participants (from state and regional governments, industry and munici-
palities, and acadeinia) in the design of the new policy found that a major
itep was to agree on the variables and quantitative measures comprising
a model of Fox River pollution, and they further recommend the estab-
lishment of institutional arrangements to deal with future advances in
modelling which might affect the new policy.
Negotiation is argued to be suited especially to such decision situa-
tions because incentives to make good use of information, to detect and
correct error and the ability to resolve conflict are inherent in this joint
decision making or problem solving process.0 It allows the confrontation
of "value-bound components of scientific analysis" and the opportunity
'Ibid, p. 8.
'Thompson, A.R., Bnnkes, N. It Soilto-Mnjor, J. Energy Project Afproeal in Brid'ih
Columlia. University of British Columbia: Westwater Research Centre, 1081, p.ll.
'David, M.H. & Joeres, E. is n viable Implementation of TDPs transferable? In Joeres
& David (eds) Buying a Better Environment. Madison, Wis: University of Wisconsin
Press, 1083, 233-248.
'See for example, Boichken, H. land Vie Conflicti: Organitational Dtrign and Retourct
Maiufcnunl, Urbana: University of Illinois Press, 1082; Prultt, D. Negotiation Be-
faner, New York: Academic Press, 1081; Schelllng, supra note E; Zaltman, I.W.
Negotiation a* a joint decision-making process, Journal of Conflict Jbiofulion, 1977,
21(4), 610-638.
-------
H II
H I!
ij- ijj
11
II! Mil
;• i l\ Ii I ii j,
;Neg<- a Monitoring Program
i^> l: : if — '-.
.!*fc z-.-•-.;
:ws::::s IK «;;i
-(=- = * = = ii i
nif« mm!
. r,f :.--" r r- : ;
i MB
1
102:
I
MM! I HI I I Illl
-^E- = - ~= |*= = "5H1 - ^ = -d II 'iy^
1|I ! ! :
to fold distributional concerns
p ; - " ;S - I ~ ^|Ka "
Perhaps even more noteworthy, negotiation fosters the cnpjaiqity to,
adapt to changing conditions. In Colorado, for example, the company and
the county initially negotiated the development of a monitoring program'
and were then able to re-negotiate the terms of that program as changes
became necessary.11
This advantage may be attributed to the fact that negotiation involves
an agreement between parties not to reach a solution in terms of rules but
to create the rules by which they can organize their relationship to one
another. n In other words, a monitoring program can be conceived as
a kind of relational contract where the parties create a structure through
which to address problems and make decisions over time.13 Not only does
this adaptability make sense in the real and uncertain world of resource
development, but the actual negotiation structure for making decisions is
considered to be economically efficient.14
2. Fairness: Negotiating the design of a monitoring program may
enhance the equity of resource development. One reason is that helps
redress some of the powerlessness of affected communities (who do not
usually participate directly in the decision to develop the local resources)
by allowing direct participation in some of the decisions about the project.
A common form of public participation in resource development policy
is some version of the public hearing, and information gathered through
this essentially adversarial process may form the basis for designing a
monitoring program. Though this kind of input may have alleviated some
of the poverty of power at the local level, the participation role is not
'"Oeawn, C. ft Suuklnd, L. Mediating Sciena-inteniivt Public Policy Ditpvlti. Preiented
to the Association for Public Policy Analysis nnd Management, New Orleant, Oc-
tober, 1984.
"Supra note 3.
"Gulliver (1073) died In Nadir, L. A Tmld, H F. Jr., 7*e Difputinf Proctn — Into in
Tin Societiei, New York: Columbia University Press, 1978, p. 10.
l3Willinmsnn, O.E. Transnction-cost economies: the governance of contractual rela-
tions. The Journal of Law and Eeonomiei, 1979, 22, 233-261.
'«lbld. Among other reasons, Williamson notes that negotiation creates relationships
that circumvent opportunism and also establish what he refer* to at "communication
economics."
a=
-? ,
K5 J*; v : :=! H — =
C. A.R
I JIM i lij i II n: ;§
;fe-l«ion-n«k5n««but om of Information provision. TfejjpNbiic! hejarimf J
ipracess is 'generally 'absent in criteria for weighting different sources of g
iinformatioii and the built-in incentives nre to persuade the deciders. As a ^
fresult, the information which is provided may represent those issues most ^
Uwily or powerfully argued, or most easily measured. These may not, and («
lire unlikely to be synonymous with what is of greatest concern in affected |
, communities. —
' Negotiation creates a forum where affected interests can deal directly «
I with disagreements over what should be monitored and how those things g
- should be assessed and dealt with. Although it comes with no guarantees |
I of authenticity or integrity, negotiation does provide an alternative avenue g,
• of participation which may increase the level of representation in making^
' of decisions. In Wyoming, for example, where there is some experience ^
I with community negotiated mitigation and compensation agreements, they
: first stage in the negotiation is reported to be reaching a consensus on-
= projected impacts and their importance to various constituencies in tlie^
: community.15 This is particularly true with respect to impacts based our;
; population and demographic projections. i
3. Better Implementation: Monitoring programs, like most poli-s
cies, have suffered from intentional and unintentional implementation
problems.10 Negotiating the program may discourage intentional viola-
tion because participating in the design tends to increase the commitment=
of those responsible for implementation. That this is equally valuable for
energy companies and for communities is evidenced by the Western Fu-
els case where the company was initially worried that the county might
charge them for "cadillac servicing."IT
The flexibility and adaptive capacity created through negotiation con-
« tributes to avoiding as well as detecting and correcting unintentional error.
The theory and so far relatively limited practice with negotiation in
this context suggest that negotiation promises to be an effective tool in the
design of monitoring programs. The degree to which it fulfills this promise
depends a great deal on how the negotiation process is structured. To tin*
"Supra note 1. Interview* with company and town neiotlators. ;
"SeTcor example Banke, ft Thompson and Thompton, Banke. & Souto-MaJor Supra
nott 4.
"Supra note 3.
~
IS i
Sit
llj
i i|
I I!
; -is
; ii
IS
I 13
•i
-------
Negotiating a Monitoring Program
104 105
end, several issues and elements should be factored into the design of a
policy to negotiate an impact monitoring program.
DESIGN ELEMENTS
1. Negotiator Selection and Accountability: It is the interests
which need to be represented in the negotiation rather than particular
constituencies.18 Nevertheless, there must be some way to get the right
people to the table and to make sure they are accountable to their con-
stituents. "The right people" means that the negotiators are able to com-
mit their constituencies to supporting and implementing the monitoring
program, and that some mechanism for accountability exists which may
help assuage the problems of imperfect representation.
Prom the community point of view, the most appropriate way of choos-
ing negotiators and achieving accountability seems to be one that is com-
patible with the local political culture, and there are many variations.
In the Western Fuels case, for example, three country commissioners and
the general manager negotiated on behalf of nine special districts and
the agreement was approved by those districts. And in Montana, when
the Northern Cheyenne successfully negotiated with the Montana Power
Company, the Tribal Council selected two negotiators (one a member of
the Council's Mineral Committee and one outside expert on energy re-
sources) and then ratified the final agreement.10
In Massachusetts and Connecticut, where hasardous waste siting leg-
islation provides statutory support for this kind of negotiation, a Local
Assessment Committee and a Local Project Review Committee respec-
tively are appointed to negotiate with project proponents.30 Town Coun-
cils do not have ratification power under these Acts but to ensure wider
accountability, the respective State Siting Councils must approve the ft-
"Sutukind, L.E., RIchnrdrion.R.R. * HIMrbrnnri, K.J. Resolving Environment))) Oil-
putei, MIT: Environmental Impact Aiienmcnt Project, 1978, p.26.
"Sulllvnn, T.J. The difficulties of mandatory negotiation (the Colttrlp Power Plimt
CMC) In L. Simklnrl, L. Bncow, & M. Wheeler (ed».) Retaining Environmental ffejifr-
lory Dufutet, Cambridge, Matt: Schenkmnn Publlihing Company, 1083, 59-85. SH
alio Supra note 1.
"Conncdievi Huardout Watte RuiHy Siting Act, Public Act 81-360, Ch. 446 (let In
particular S. 18) and Mnsiachuiett* Haeardout Watte Facility Siting Act, Ch. 509,
0, Matt. Acts 673, 111, 21c. (ice In particulars. 6, 8,12).
C. A. uolf
nal agreement.31 In Wyoming where the negotiation process is less for-
mally structured, the final agreements are usually approved by the Town
Council.32
It should be noted, however, that peer pressure and the politics of
personality often found in small communities may threaten this kind of
accountability. In one case in Wyoming one leader of a group of dis-
affected cititens received threats to his life and business, and no local
ittorney would agree to represent this group at public hearings." The
absence of dissent cannot be unambiguously equated with the legitimacy
of agreements, but presumably the more open the negotiation process,
the more accountable the results.
2. Negotiation Procedures: Of the multiple factors affecting the
(access of the actual negotiation process and the chances of reaching a
settlement,24 three seem particularly important with respect to negotiat-
ing a monitoring program: symmetry of power and resources, a multiple
issue agenda, and a mechanism for resolving disputes.
(a.) Power and Resource Symmetry: Symmetry is necessary to ensure
that negotiation is the "product of necessity"36 or in other words that
the alternative to negotiation, whatever that may be, is not a more at-
tractive option to one of the parties than negotiation. Problems of asym-
metry in this kind of negotiation are likely to lie in information, funding
and technical expertise, all of which may be in favour of senior govern-
ments and the energy companies unless deliberately designed otherwise.
The Northern Cheyenne in Montana have a Research Centre staffed by
planners and environmental scientists who conducted a study of coal de-
"For one dlicutilon of tome of the lituei of wider accountnbillty In the context of
environmental mediation (a related procei») tee Suitktnd, L. tt Oeawa, C. Mediated
Negotiation In the Public Sector: Mediator Accountability and the Public Interest
Problem. Amtriean Btnationi Seitntiit, 1083, 27(2), 255-270.
"Supra not* 1.
"interview: Powder River Benin Reiourre Council, Douglat, Wyoming.
14Se« for example Cormick, G.W. The "theory" nnd practice of environmental medi-
ation, Hit Enw'itmmtnldl Profenianet, 1980, 2, 24-33; Sullivan, T.J. Rcidting Dtnt-
Ofmtnt Ditputti Amvgh Negotiation, New York: Plenum Prett, 1083; and Supra note
1.
»lbjd. tet Cormick.
-------
811;'
ill I
HI
! ill !I
Miii
N ting a Momitoring Program
1061
I i
I =
I
I
velopment impacts.30 In [Colorado, the county received a $200,000; loan
from the Governor's Office with whkh ilo hire legal assistance and two
university-based economists who reviewed Western Fuel's Environinen-
! tal Impact Study.37 The Massachusetts and Connecticut legislation pro-
vides for Technical Assistance Grants of up to $15,000 but there is not
! yet enough experience under these Acts to assess how well this method
works.38
(b.) Multiple Issue Agenda: A narrow agenda may easily transform
the process into a sero-sum game because there is little opportunity for
reciprocal concessions, thus threatening the negotiation. Parties are un-
able to trade concessions in one issue for gains in another. A multiple
issue agenda makes bargaining more likely to be successful.30
After years of acrimony and an aborted attempt at negotiation, the
final success of the Northern Cheyenne and Montana Power negotiations
is attributed partially to a broader agenda.30 And one of the strengths of
the Western Fuels Agreement is its "package program" nature instead o!
a series of individual agreements between the company and various local
government entitites. In addition to broadening the agenda, this promote*
monitoring that is more likely to be comprehensive than fragmented.
(c.) Dispute Resolution Mechanism: This mechanism actually serves
dual purposes. One is to cope with the inevitable spectre of stalemate
and the other is to help to create some sense of urgency, or pressures
for decisiveness in the negotiations. Without this sense, negotiating the
1 monitoring program may be just another way of avoiding or delaying Us
implementation. In the Western Fuels case, there were only five monthi
between the filing of applications and the expected construction start, and
the coal market had not softened yet. Rather than relying on idiosyncratic
circumstances or the world market, action-forcing deadlines may creatr
the same sense of urgency. In Massachusetts, for example, negotiation U
statutorily required to be completed within 60 days (although up to two
30 day extensions may be granted).
"Supra note 24 Sullivan.
"Supra note 2.
"Note In Connecticut, more money may be available If total project eoiti art OYW
$500,000.
lft§upra note 24 Sullivan.
i note 22 Sullivan.
a AirsM;,
Another method wmtld be for the parties to actually negotiate thosej
deadlines, an exercise whkh would alto educate the negotiators by pro-j
tiding an opportunity to learn that agreement is possible.31 To parlies!
who have been locked in long-standing disputes, or where there is a his-j
lory of mistrust, this cart come as a surprising revelation. If the parties]
were unsuccessful, one default option would be to retort to the dispute]
resolution mechanism. This safeguards against such deadlines subverting-
the process and forcing an illegitimate settlement. !
The key variable to an effective dispute resolution mechanism is that
it not be more attractive than negotiation. A common provision is some
form of arbitration which transfers the decision-making power to a third
pirly who has more or less authority to bind the parties to some decision.
Under the Massachusetts legislation, for example, stalemated parties have
the option of a three person arbitration panel (one person chosen from
etch side and the third jointly selected) or one arbitrator jointly selected.
In the event that this too is stalemated, the State Siting Council will
•elect an arbitration panel. Veterans of this kind of negotiation report a
reluctance to transfer their authority and power; negotiating decisions, no
matter how difficult, is generally preferred to their external imposition.33
3. Enforcement Mechanism: In case of disputes or of intentional
violations during implementation, there must be some way of enforcing
the agreement. Some enforcement strength stems from the contract na-
ture of a negotiated agreement. Standard civil law remedies, or variations
thereof, might then be called upon.33
Substantial enforcement strength stems, however, from the ongoing
nature of monitoring and the possibility for re-negotiation. This ability
to deal with both intentional and unintentional problems with implemen-
tation contributes to the flexibility and legitimacy of the agreement and to
the continued evolution of the norms and rules governing the relationships
•mong the parties involved.
*'3upra note t.
"Supra not* 1.
"For a dhcuiiton of powlble remedies and iome of the imuei which mlf ht be Involved
IM Banktf & Thompton Supra not* 4 and Barton, B.J., Franton, R.T., & Thomp-
ion, A.R. A Contract ModOjof Pollution Control. University of Brltiih Columbia:
Wwtwater Reteareh Centre, 1084. jj^
-------
00
Negotiating a Monitoring Program
lot
In effect, this advantage requires a monitoring of monitoring and some
way to resolve disputes, and the Western Fuels Agreement again provide!
an example. There, an Advisory Committee comprised of representative
from each of the districts involved in the agreement and the coal 'and
power companies reviews the monitoring program and implementation of
the agreement. In an amendment to the initial agreement, the partiei
agreed to bargain over disputes arising during implementation.34 Should
bargaining fail, and if the dispute originates with a local government entity
other than the County, the County resolves the issue with a final, binding
decision. (An aggrieved party may file a notice invoking arbitration withii
10 days). If the County is involved in the dispute, the problem gow
directly to arbitration.
As mentioned earlier, the Advisory Committee and this dispute reso-
lution mechanism have been tested. After problems arose with applying
fiscal formulae to calculate mitigation payments, the terms of the moni-
toring agreement were re-negotiated. Although the re-negotiation went on
for nearly a year, neither side opted for arbitration; among other things,
a testimony to the alleged superiority of negotiation in making decisioni
about monitoring.
CONCLUSION
Designing a monitoring program which is both meaningful to the peo-
ple affected by resource development and which will work is always going
to be a challenge. Negotiation, however provides one way to try and
meet that challenge which suits the nature of the game that is resource
development. Although it is a conflict solving process common to most
cultures, we know less about it works than we do about other procedures
which involve third parties or the transfer of participant power.96. We
know even less about how it works in the making of policy decisions such
as the design of a monitoring program.
FVom what we do know about negotiation, from what we know about
how it works in other contexts, and particularly from what we know about
how it works in the resource development context, it is possible to identify
some of the issues which needs be considered if one were to recommend
the negotiation of a monitoring program. We know enough to fabricate
"Western Fuels Agreement, Article XII.
l5*' - L. * Todd. H.F. Jr. Supra note 12
C. A. K
at least a framework for this rather blunt policy instrument, the dynamic
nature of which may preclude precision even in the future. Neverthe-
less, more and more experience will allow more and more refinement and
growth.
As a maker of monitoring programs, negotiation may be imperfect. It
may be more craft than art or science. But given its superior ability to
weave decisions from uncertainty, complexity and conflict, and to weave
them with community power, it seems a worthwhile craft.
-------
iif'i"'! i ^"ISft m !ii;i,i ; i :• i
U H I •
r i i ii iifli
:=
I :*-f* flr ,-, *gp jfc* ^ =: ™=-
-- ;; -!*=•<- '=•- :-«--> :
:;.s;;::;^;:lSrS: S
1 >::, r \?!ai, :: "...tv- :
. i. ^L^ii _ ,::. :2i:i^ .i _::,2:s;
:
; ; j-rf ;/- • •;;(>? g !;i ?v
j'ai'Ji -• :--;•-.?:'£ 7 :^*:;;
I
--.:« • -^ : ift,
i ;s s_ _ J fr ^ £/ '. ;;:
= " " . " r=l -^ :^ ; I ^="
- ^ k - _ t ^ -: ^
•*"_• " r tt>>v^ ;;
8 "v: ;»;-"-.> •; ,,• :
- - " - 1 ^ iV j- r is=='s
;;;t: ^'^ 2 ii!f:;
;-'"• ^'S,**: i V,;
Tiitjifcsi ^. r- £ .-: . .
_j^ = ia=c _^ il= =a!ii_ d it
.g,;!'£ * i i '« !
I i i; ii
li I, il i S ,s i!
: ij M : !
! ii i
= i i
»!| i
i I i n I
j -- = : ,
,;! : ;;
. y =
'I'.'
;:: , i
5 ;, !
'! :; !
:
. - .
: l '
! =l
. M _s_
:;; I
JMJ
-= l - --
!_ :i -
: • " : i
^ :, ; '
IN i
-= - - 1
• ii : i i
"- " ! _
, i M i
: i n i
II ; I i
i E i I Ei l;=: i - -- I
'A • - A ^!!"
1 '^^ - ; f " ^^ !!li' 'i1'^'
I Hp j * ~ ! = __ (I HIE
! = 4 li i i (I ! ^s r. =-. ni « s
i j : i . - ; i= M!) «:•:;, n
7 : = 1 s '
' ' ' ' : i* -*'-] ~ '">!--• ~' ~
' " \ ~ j- ' -',, *f 1' ' * !
i « ;: i - ; - . , MM =;&:'' ;
i ;; ; s !; :'•;
• * - j - : ; fs jj ;; : ~ -':;, '.
: ' ' — _> _ ': !:: E ~ r : :
-i ! =i i - - : - . !; ;:r: • iM-t
M: ' - ; i n ;;:= ^-^' ;:
: ! - I : - !i !:'
| i f 1 = i =- -.- = M MI
" i : : ; i.s ;: i,1' i :
i !- 1 " - _ ^ M, -; , ••••> ! i
--; i; !' . ! :: :; *!;«;)
' j .: L - j !i ;;;i: I;HP:;!M
t ! = ;L
• ! ; -.', v ^i " ; :
: ; - u i :"s: ! i
i = i — f- - Ml J= iS i ?1 ± :
= : : - . -; = = I V ^ i =: = ;
' : ' ! :;! - ~'"! ;
: • = ~ : ;• i;:i f! s|';: ;
, • • '= •= ! - - -i M;« '
: = . i :: E: - ^ :
1 i ^ I : = --" 1 3« -t : ^ - 1
- "^ : ! ' w 'i:3, ' !
: i - j ' • ;! - :;':; • ;
! ; M • " M !•;« ;' :
! = ^ s tf ^: r - =^ . :l • J
: ;: • — i -.. h f j J i; i i
; > :, 1 ~ ,1 1; | ',• jl j ; '
) i ii i s i M ll'jiiii
! « M - - j H II jjj ii:!ji|[j
*=•_'• >i HI isji' i
' ; ii i - - " '• Mi'; >#i!ii
1 ii j _ :,:\< *l i-:_. .
i i ii i ^ i : =! ii iiii
1 ! r lit
'__ , , j g j| ..Jl ,,,, sjij
= i II = = i ~— :J p 111 -f, IS i f 1 I
: 1 ;: • -- :! !ji -fe^M:?:
Ml!! 1 II II ill
I I |i i = 1 -- :: iiii
H -
"I
1-
-'
|
j;
1|"
|| -
Jd
11^
m
jjl
il i
ill
=i 1
il |
i !
ii i
81
i j
Pj
*i l
1(1
a i
il j
[I
!S 1
ii 1
H i
(J
!-J
I/
(I
|1
H
H
in
i
i
n
i I
I |
1
M
flj
ii!
-------
SECTION 2
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT
METHODOLOGIES AND
EVALUATION CHECKLIST
-------
III Ilil II III r. £PSMIS.;Fto fi;iH^ iii1
I1: .Hi; i "In!' 'i ji! 11 if St ,|,,i, niml !',| „ 1, t |, llllli:i;•.:;, :|!]lliliii!t mk'iS ,,, .• u < ,i: kill .iiijIK" ,1 11 '"to, t" JliiiiE I1
,,'! 'Illll'll',' I',i, '"ILIIIII'.'I'lill!::,,"!!:; ,,i,n71 "" 111" ,;, n.l'l' ' HIILiU'lll ''",1,11'IIIIIIIIIK^^ " ,1" III WITH" II ," llil Inlliillll ', !„ ,l: II "III, "I I III ,:l" ,,1111,,,, Illl
in ii ii ii i ,'"',1,' iniiii'ini ;i!i,iiiii:i!i:''iiii;:',,,i!':ii]!,i ,n;,n ::F ',11,1111, pi iiiiiiiii niniiiiirji' it, 'it;,, i,;1'""' 'aiiiaffi fills "i' i, :' 'i«,i",,,i" IHIPI'i aiii'iiiD,'1 iiiiii
I
.'il'1'1',;,!"!'.,,,:! a ,;;• I'Miri",, ,!!" n .PI i, ji,,, -• ,'"(,'j",',;:,,;, : s,,1 ,;/. .>:.•:. :.:.'•.!*>, •mki^n-: ' i'li i:1!" nil i.
Mil ill ^M'f i
'Vl!,,:)
¥
,';,- .V'"'!'!!,!!1'1,' ,,,;":r:,ilil',:,;,',,l";ll'!'i,i
i'"! '',! ..... 'ii'iiit'iji ^i!«niii«!HK!:!t
. ., ,
•lip"1 ...... "i '''i!',11'11'1, ^fBiAi'^iit ''iiiiLJiiv11 ,i '''' ..... ; ..... -7 ,, JJ """'ii1.,1:'""!1!!"';.* , '" ',', :i . &". v iiiii-pi:!1:'!! "„;!,"',.;''!„ , ,,
m ..... ;ai ....... ! ....... v ...... i ..... -fe1!! .......... i ...... if ...... ',= ...... ?.rswsi>v^.i*3f2i ..... ill-! ..... M ......... ••'!» ..... ':|ii ..... i ....... m .....
••,'.( ;• ,"' '',1 US lill.l'iH''': a TK'.L.'.t.'iiSl 111|HI lillillll
sin"1: ml i': "it „!>•;<„::, .liiti'iii',,,: ''.nil! iii'lll iSiiiii; Sii1!,' ill ii 11
III 1
Ill
1 ',;'|,i :'!,'::, w:, ,i
II II II
-------
SECTION 2.1
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT
METHODOLOGIES
-------
;;,. ' ; ..... „; ;•„„ i,:11" ~i • ; i, siriNitiLi'JVui'i
f'j> i '":'•]•• iff i 3 ••• '< SW'r "W :•'
KT'f/l*a--ti, ....... ImM^ ..... ,M ..... tfMl1 ..... I'.i
,:'iq ..... ii,*:111,!.- .MI: .i!/ ..... ii1, iP1: .."'H*1!!'1 i!i ....... i ..... i!! JP ..itifi", iT'iiiiiH1!1 • iiiiitiv '' ..... ' ..... ^
! -'-i "J'L t! , :!-, W '!!*''• ' '" -»!? " M1!!'1,:,"" I!!"]!'! "its' ..... -T-.'ji'
',! ....... I1!1"*! • '-1 ..... :!!"! '
Id1 ill ilillll II
11(11
IlilllH
-------
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT METHODOLOGIES
Name
Application
Description
' Reference
Economic Tools
Cost-Benefit
Analysis
Cost-
Effectiveness
Analysis
Trade-Off
Analysis
Decision-Making
Decision-Making
Decision-Making
Variety of economic tools that assign value to project
components and perceived benefits, and are used to
determine relative cost and benefit of development or
project.
Economic analysis that focuses on cost of providing
services and achieving objectives. The technique
emphasizes achievement of least-cost approach.
This socioeconomic tool involves comparison of a set of
alternatives relative to a series of decision factors arrayed
on a matrix. Approaches used can include qualitative,
quantitative, ranking, rating, scaling, weighing.
Westman, W.E. 1985. Ecology, Impact Assessment
and Environmental Planning. John Wiley & Sons,
New York. 532pp.
Leistritz, F.L., and S.H. Murdock. 1981. The
Socioeconomic Impact of Resource Development:
Methods for Assessment. Westview Press, Boulder,
Colorado. 286pp.
Canter, L. W., S. F. Atkinson, and F. L. Leistritz.
1985. Impact of Growth. Lewis Publishers Inc.,
Chelsea, Michigan.
Canter, L. W. 1979. Water Resources Assessment -
Methodology and Technology Sourcebook. Ann
Arbor Science, Ann Arbor, Michigan.
Checklists
World Bank
Environmental
Impact Checklist
Model EIS
scoping checklist
NY DEC
Checklist of
potential
environmental
impacts of
transportation
project
Scoping,
Development of
Alternatives,
Mitigation
Scoping
Scoping
These checklists are designed to be used in identifying
significant environmental impacts, project alternatives, and
special issues associated with development projects. They
are qualitative and predictive in nature. More man 35 types
of projects are represented, including housing, agriculture,
and industrial development.
This is a checklist of topics intended to initiate
development of a detailed scope for an EIS. The checklist
helps identify topic areas to be addressed in the EIS.
This checklist was designed to help identify environmental
impacts associated with planning, design, construction, and
operation of a transportation project.
World Bank, 1991. Environmental Assessment
Sourcebook. Volumes II and III.
New York State Department of Environmental
Conservation, 1982. State Environmental Quality
Review Handbook.
Arthur D. Little, Inc. 1 97 1 . Transportation and the
Environment: Synthesis for Action: Impact of the
National Environmental Policy Act of 1 969 on the
Department of Transportation, Vol. I-III, prepared for
the Office of the Secretary, Department of
Transportation.
-------
1 1
i an
;;« BI i «H i m < \ <
!!
M
- ~-NTA£ mpti&M"~~ ""
i ii
i «
-j^ =
1, : I : ««• «1
1111 I Wll '
Name
.". -: Application
• Description
- - -i*-- ^~*tn^f~:* -- := fl?9!= ;r ^ U l :
' Sefcrencer ; i !;
Matrices
Leopold Matrix
Loran
Methodology
(Matrix)
Impact Assessment
Impact Assessment
This matrix is used to identify potential impacts associated
with a project or alternatives. It assists performing a
comprehensive review of the variety of interactions
between project elements and environmental parameters, to
identify important environmental factors, data needs, and
less damaging alternatives.
This method uses a matrix of 234 project activities and 27
environmental features to identify critical environmental
areas. Each element in the matrix is scaled and results
input to an algorithm that aggregates impact scores. It is
used to identify critical environmental areas.
Leopold, L B., F. E. Clarke, B. B, Hanshaw, and J. R.
Balsley. 1971. A procedure for evaluating
environmental impact Circular 645. U.S. Geological
Survey, Washington, D.C.
Thompson, M. A. 1990. Determining impact
significance in EIA: a review of 24 methodologies.
Journal ob Environmental Management 30:235-250.
Scaling or Weighing Techniques
Crawford
Methodology
PADC
Methodology
Water Resources
Assessment
Methodology
Fischer and
Davis
Methodology
Impact Assessment
Impact Assessment
Impact Assessment
Impact Assessment
Methodology was devised for use in highway route
planning. It makes extensive use of public involvement
and the Delphi Technique. The technique is used as a basis
for analyzing the value trade-offs involved in a decision
between project alternatives. Results show each alternative
as a percentage of maximum possible positive or negative
impact.
This tool evaluates the significance of impacts based on 5
polarities: adverse/beneficial, short/long term,
reversible/irreversible, direct/indirect, local/strategic. No
numerical method of evaluating responses is presented.
This methodology produces scores for evaluating effects of
alternatives on specific environmental components. The
methodology uses scaling and weighing methods for
environmental social and economic components.
This method is used for determination of impact, although
it does not differentiate between impact magnitude and
significance. Impacts are assigned a positive(+) or
negative^), and the degree of impact is assigned
subjectively. Designators are used to indicate short-term or
long-term impacts. Scores achieved are used to compare
alternatives.
Thompson, M. A. 1990. Determining impact
significance in EIA: a review of 24 methodologies.
Journal of Environmental Management 30:235-250.
Thompson, M. A. 1990. Determining impact
significance in EIA: a review of 24 methodologies.
Journal of Environmental Management 30:235-250.
Thompson, M. A. 1990. Determining impact
significance in EIA: a review of 24 methodologies.
Journal of Environmental Management 30:235-250.
Thompson, M. A. 1990. Determining impact
significance in EIA: a review of 24 methodologies.
Journal of Environmental Management 30:235-250.
= '^ **
'
* " 'Li* L -'
I
i > «t
i
T ,
-------
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT METHODOLOGIES
Name
Application
Description
Reference,
Overlay Mapping and GIS
Overlay Mapping
Geographic
Information
Systems (GIS)
Landscape
Mapping (GIS)
Ground
Disturbance
Model
Visual Contrast
Cultural
Resources '
Predictive Model
Sensitive
Habitats
Slope (GIS)
Impact Assessment,
Environmental
Characterization
Impact Assessment,
Environmental
Characterization
Impact Analysis and
Prediction
Impact Assessment
Impact Assessment
Impact Assessment
Impact Assessment
Impact Assessment
This method is useful in displaying and identifying areas of
environmental sensitivity, succession, development, and
landscape impacts due to multiple projects.
GIS consists of digitized maps and overlays that are used to
show spatial dimensions of impacts and areas of concern.
This tool is used to assess the suitability or vulnerability of
an area for various uses.
This GIS-based tool is a model that combines GIS database
layers of land-cover, slope categories, and transportation to
quantify and map the area of potential land disturbance into
5 levels of magnitude.
This GIS-based tool provides a measure of visible change
in the landscape. It combines GIS data for landcover,
terrain, land-sue and the proposed project description to
map a visual contrast representing the level of change in
the characteristic landscape.
This GIS-based tool uses data on landcover, terrain, and
water resources to determine the probability of finding
culturally-sensitive sites.
This GIS-based tool applies GIS buffering capacity to
establish zones of potentially sensitive habitats associated
with known habitat locations.
This GIS-based tool uses USGS data to map 5 slope
categories. The slope categories are important in the
development kf access levels for use in ground-water
disturbance and public accessibility pre-impact assessment
models.
McHarg, I. 1969. Design with Nature. Natural
History, New York.
Westman, W. E., 1985. Ecology, Impact Assessment
and Environmental Planning. John Wiley & Sons,
New York. 532pp.
Hopkins, L. D. 1977. Methods for generating land
suitability maps: a comparative evaluation. Journal of
the American Institute of Planners 43:386-400.
Rasmussen, W. O., R. N. Weisz, P. F. Folliott, and D.
R. Carder. 1980. Planning for forest roads-a
computer assisted procedure for selection of
alternative corridors. Journal of Environmental
Management 11: 94-104.
Jensen, J., and G. Gault. 1992. Electrifying the
impact assessment process. The Environmental
Professional 14:50-59.
Jensen, I, and G. Gault. 1992. Electrifying the
impact assessment process. The Environmental
Professional 14:50-59.
Jensen, J., and G. Gault. 1992. Electrifying the
impact assessment process. The Environmental
Professional 14:50-59.
Jensen, 1, and G. Gault. 1992. Electrifying the
impact assessment process. The Environmental
Professional 14:50-59.
Jensen, J., and G. Gault. 1992. Electrifying the
impact assessment process. The Environmental
Professional 14:50-59.
-------
I! MI
liiL
I11:
i | !S i
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT METHOD OLOGIES
ilNlllI
II
II
MM;;:!
Name
Visibility Model
Public
Accessibility
Model
Ecological Risk
Assessment
Human Health
Risk Assessment
Economic-
Demographic
Assessment
Models
Application
Impact Assessment
Impact Assessment
Impact Analysis and
Prediction
Impact Analysis and
Prediction
Impact Analysis and
Prediction
Description
This CIS model is constructed using digital terrain data and
selected land-uses to map "view/sheds' over digitally
modeled terrain in the project study area. Resulting maps
show visibility as distance thresholds of visual perception,
and can be used by CIS impact models to determine
potential visual impacts of construction and operation of
the project.
This GIS-based tool estimates the degree of remoteness of
areas along transmission line routing alternatives. It uses
GIS data on transportation and ground disturbance to
estimate the increase in area accessible by roads in remote
areas.
Identifies and quantifies risks to ecological receptors from
chemical, physical, and biological agents. Evaluates the
likelihood that an adverse ecological effect will occur as a
result of exposure to contaminant or disturbance. Uses
exposure and effects models.
Provides quantitative estimates of cancer and non-cancer
risk associated with exposure to chemicals or biological
agents. This tool includes a source/release assessment, fate
and transport models, exposure assessment, toxicological
assessment and risk characterization.
Numerous models used to integrate economic,
demographic, public service and fiscal projections to
estimate public costs and revenues, and public service
demands.
Reference - . .\ •
Jensen, J., and G. Gault. 1992. Electrifying the
impact assessment process. The Environmental
Professional 14:50-59.
Jensen, J., and G. Gault. 1992. Electrifying the
impact assessment process. The Environmental
Professional 14:50-59.
Suter, G. W. II 1993. Ecological Risk Assessment.
Lewis Publishers, Inc., Chelsea, Michigan. 538pp.
Cohressen, J. J., and V. T. Covello. 1989. Risk
Analysis: A Guide to Principles and Methods for
Analyzing Health and Environmental Risks. U.S.
Council on Environmental Quality, Executive Office
of the President. 407pp. Available from: The
National Technical Information Service, U.S.
Department of Commerce, 5285 Port Royal Road,
Springfield, VA 22161. # PB89-137772.
Sanderson, W. C. 1978. Economic-Demographic
Models: A Review of Their Usefulness for Policy
Analysis. Technical Paper 4. Rome, Italy: Food and
Agriculture Organization of the United Nations.
Chemical Fate and Transport Models
Fugacity Models
GEOTOX
Impact Analysis and
Prediction
Impact Analysis and
Prediction
Numerous models used to predict fate of chemicals in
multimedia systems. Complexity varies from steady-state
to time-varying models. Outputs from these models are
used in risk assessments.
This compartmental model calculates chemical
partitioning, degrading reactions, and interphase transport.
It is used in conjunction with human exposure models.
Mackay, D., and S. Paterson. 1993. Exposure
Assessment: Mathematical Models of transport and
fate. In: Ecological Risk Assessment (ed. G. W. Suter
II). Lewis Publishers, Inc., Chelsea , Michigan.
Mackay, D., and S. Paterson. 1993. Exposure
Assessment: Mathematical Models of transport and
fate. In: Ecological Risk Assessment (ed. G. W. Suter
II). Lewis Publishers, Inc., Chelsea , Michigan.
i!
-------
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT A^ESSMENT METHODOLOGIES
Name
Application
Description
Reference
BMP ART
Impact Analysis and
Prediction
Environmental PARTitioning is a fugacity-based
screening-level model estimates partitioning of organic
chemicals among environmental compartments, identifies
dominant pathways and data gaps, and provides estimates
of a chemical's persistence and bioconcentration potential.
Mackay, D., and S. Paterson. 1993. Exposure
Assessment: Mathematical Models of transport and
fate. In: Ecological Risk Assessment (ed. G.W. Suter
II). Lewis Publishers, Inc., Chelsea, Michigan.
TOXSCREEN
Impact Analysis and
Prediction
This time-dependent multimedia model is a screening tool
that assesses the potential for environmental transport and
accumulation of chemicals released to the air, surface water
and soil.
Mackay, D., and S. Paterson. 1993. Exposure
Assessment: Mathematical Models of transport and
fate. In: Ecological Risk Assessment (ed. G.W. Suter
II). Lewis Publishers, Inc.. Chelsea, Michigan.
SIMPLESAL
Impact Analysis and
Prediction
This screening level multimedia fugacity compartmental
model is used to estimate steady-state or time dependent
concentrations of chemicals, and determine dominant
environmental pathways and processes.
Mackay, D., and S. Paterson. 1993. Exposure
Assessment: Mathematical Models of transport and
fate. In: Ecological Risk Assessment (ed. G.W. Suter
II). Lewis Publishers, Inc., Chelsea, Michigan.
AERIS
Impact Analysis and
Prediction
This multimedia risk assessment model estimates .
environmental concentrations and human exposures in the
vicinity of contaminated land sites. It is a menu-driven
model with built-in default values.
Mackay, D., and S. Paterson. 1993. Exposure
Assessment: Mathematical Models of transport and
fate. In: Ecological Risk Assessment (ed. G.W. Suter
II). Lewis Publishers, Inc., Chelsea, Michigan.
Senes Consultants. 1989. Contaminated Soil Cleanup
in Canada, Volume 5, Development of the AERIS
Model, Final Report prepared for the
Decommissioning Steering Committee.
Persistence
Impact Analysis and
Prediction
This screening-level model is used to estimate the fate of
organic chemicals, especially pesticides, released into the
aquatic environment. It provides a steady-state, fixed, or
time dependent solution using default environmental
parameters.
Mackay, D., and S. Paterson. 1993. Exposure
Assessment: Mathematical Models of transport and
fate. In: Ecological Risk Assessment (ed. G.W. Suter
II). Lewis Publishers, Inc., Chelsea, Michigan.
EXAMS
Impact Analysis and
Prediction
Exposure Analysis Modeling System. This is a mass-
balance model that predicts the fate of organic chemicals in
stratified surface waters as a result of continuous or
intermittent releases.
Mackay, D., and S. Paterson. 1993. Exposure
Assessment: Mathematical Models of transport and
fate. In: Ecological Risk Assessment (ed. G.W. Suter
II). Lewis Publishers, Inc., Chelsea, Michigan.
Burns, L. A,, D. M. Cline, and R. R. Lassiter. 1981.
Exposure Analysis Modeling Systems (EXAMS):
User Manual and System Documentation. U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, Environmental
Research Laboratory. Athens. Georgia.
-------
! MS!
Ill: 1
B HI II j! I I
m \ i! IP i
-I
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT A^JESSMENT teTHOD OLO OES
Name
Application
Description
Reference
EXWAT
Impact Analysis and
Prediction
This is a steady-state model used to describe chemical fate
in water bodies and assess comparative hazards. It is
applicable to continuous single-point sources.
Maekay,D.,andS.Paterson. 1993. Exposure
Assessment: Mathematical Models of transport and
fate. In: Ecological Risk Assessment (ed, G.W. Suter
II). Lewis Publishers, Inc., Chelsea, Michigan.
Metal Speciation
Models
Impact Analysis and
Prediction
Models such as MINTEQAI are used to determine
equilibrium speciation of metals in surface and
groundwaters. Outputs include equilibrium aqueous
speciation, adsorption, gas-phase partitioning, solid-phase
saturation states and precipitation-dissolution states.
Brown, D.S., and J.D.Allison. 1987. MINTEQAI
Equilibrium Metal Speciation Model: A User's
Manual. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
Environmental Research Laboratory, Athens, Georgia.
! ON
Fish Uptake and
Food Chain
Models
Impact Analysis and
Prediction
Variety of models used to estimate concentrations of
chemicals in aquatic biota.
Mackay, D., and S. Paterson. 1993. Exposure
Assessment: Mathematical Models of transport and
fate. In: Ecological Risk Assessment (ed. G.W. Suter
II). Lewis Publishers, Inc., Chelsea, Michigan.
Thomann, R. V. 1989. Bioaccumulation model of
organic chemical distribution in aquatic food chains.
Environmental Science and Technology 23:699-707.
Clark, K. E., F.A.P.C. Gobas, and D. Mackay. 1990.
Model of organic chemical uptake and clearance by
fish from food and water. Environmental Science and
Technology 24:1203-1213.
Cornell, D. W. 1989. Bioaccumulation of
Xenophobic Compounds. CRC Press, Boca Raton,
Flori
-------
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT Ac^ESSMENT METHODOLOGIES
Name
Soil Models
Atmospheric
Models
Application
Impact Analysis and
Prediction
Impact Analysis and
Prediction
Description
Variety of models used to predict fate and transport of
chemicals in soil. Model outputs are used in Risk
Assessment.
Variety of models used to calculate ground-level
concentrations of chemicals from emission sources. Model
outputs are used in Risk Assessment.
Reference
Bonazountas, M., and J. M. Wagner. 1984. SESOIL-
A seasonal soil compartment model. Arthur D. Little
Co., Cambridge, Massachusetts.
Carsel, R. F., C. N. Smith, L. A. Mulkey, J. D. Dean,
and P. Jowise. 1984. User's Manual for the Pesticide
Root Zone Model (PRZM). EPA-600/3-84-109. U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, Environmental
Research Laboratory, Athens, Georgia.
Enfield, G. C., R. F. Carsel, S. Z. Cohen, T. Phon, and
D. M. Walters. 1982. Approximating pollutant
transport to groundwater. Ground Water 20:7 1 1 -727 .
Jury, W. A., W. F. Spencer, and W. J. Farmer. 1983.
Behavior assessment model for trace organics in soil.
Journal of Environmental Quality 12:558-564.
Mackay, D., and S. Paterson. 1993. Exposure
Assessment: Mathematical Models of transport and
fate. In: Ecological Risk Assessment (ed. G. W. Suter
II). Lewis Publishers, Inc., Chelsea ., Michigan.
-------
f s M I
nil
5^;:, "'5
Ill
""
- PI
H
I li
mi
!
j^vri^nteprrAiL BkpAcr A J^JESSIMD^NT ivffiTOt^biSaDES
Name
N - Application
Pcjciiptfep
Biference
N>
00
Habilat
Evaluation
Models
Impact Analysis and
Prediction
This refers to a variety of models that are used to develop a
quantitative index value for existing habitats, and determine
change in that index resulting from the project.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 1993.
Habitat Evaluation: Guidance for the Review of
Environmental Impact Assessment Documents.
Farmer A. 1980. Habitat Evaluation Procedures
(HEP). ESM 102. Division of Ecological Sciences,
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Washington, D.C.
Farmer, A. 1981. Standards for the Development of
Habitat Suitability Index Models. ESM 103. Division
of Ecological Sciences, U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service, Washington D.C.
U.S. Department of the Interior. 1987. TypeB
technical information documents PB88-100128-
PB88-100169.
Atkinson, S. F. 1990. A simplified habitat evaluation
for use with remote sensing data. The Environmental
Professional 12:122-130.
Sensitivity
Analysis
Decision Making
This technique identifies the parameter or variable of a
model that is most sensitive to change. Use of this
technique helps modelers and decision-makers understand
how changes to input of an analysis affects the predicted
impact of a proposed action.
Jorgensen, S. E. 1991. Environmental management
modeling. In: Introduction to Environmental
Management (eds. P. E. Hansen and S. E. Jorgensen).
Elsevier, New York. 403 pp.
Expert Systems
Impact Analysis and
Prediction
Expert systems refer to programs developed using IF-
THEN codes. There is no reference to specific expert
systems used for the EA process.
Lein, J. 1989. An expert system approach to
environmental impact assessment. International
Journal of Environmental Studies 33:13-27.
Lein, J. K. 1993. Formalizing expert judgement in the
environmental impact assessment process. The
Environmental Professional 15: 95-102.
Computer-Aided
Environmental
Impact
Assessment
Impact Assessment
This conceptual model provides a general outline for
development of computer-aided environmental impact
assessment. It has not been developed into a useful
program. The tool is intended for use in evaluating different
environmental components and costs of mitigation
Luhar, A. K., and P. Khanna. 1988. Computer-aided
rapid environmental impact assessment.
Environmental Impact Assessment Review 8:9-25.
measures.
-------
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT METHODOLOGIES
Name
Application
Description
Reference
Field Studies
Field
Reconnaissance
Field Survey
Laboratory
Testing
Impact Identification
Impact
Identification,
Baseline
Characterization
Impact Analysis and
Identification
This tool consists of a qualitative reconnaissance of field
conditions and is used to confirm and complement
information provided in literature and background
documentation.
This tool consists of a variety of techniques designed to
address particular endpoints and objectives. Complexity
can also vary based on study objectives. Environmental
field studies document environmental conditions and
trends.
This tool consists of establishing testing protocols, or
microcosms that model processes in the field. Results are
used to predict impacts of actions on endpoints selected.
Testing protocols vary because of the multitude of potential
endpoints and test parameters.
Krebs.C.J. 1989. Ecological Methodology. Harper &
Row, NY. 654pp.
Smith, R. 1966. Ecology and Field Biology. Harper
& Row, NY. 686pp.
Suter.G. 1993. Ecological Risk Assessment. Lewis
Publishers, Chelsea, MI. 538 pp.
Sourcebook for the EA Process
Additional Assessment Tools/Techniques
Ad Hoc
Procedures
Professional
Judgement
Analog Studies/
Case Studies
Public Opinion
Regulations,
Guidelines and
Thresholds
Impact Analysis and
Prediction
Impact Analysis and
Prediction
Impact Analysis and
Prediction
Scoping, Issue
Identification,
Impact Analysis,
Determination of
Significance
Determination of
Significance
Qualitative tool used to assemble information, compare
alternative sites, and develop strategy
Qualitative tool involving an experienced multidisciplinary
team. Professional Judgement is used to design an EA,
evaluate and select methods/models, determine relevance of
data, develop assumptions to fill data gaps, interpret
predicted/observed effects.
This tool involves the use of information from studies that
are analogous to the project being evaluated by virtue of
geography, action, etc. It assumes that observed impacts at
the analog site will be similar to the study site.
This qualitative tool helps to identify and determine the
relative significance of environmental impacts. It is based
on providing information to the public on the proposed
action, alternatives and potential impacts.
This screening tool consists of identifying applicable
regulations and criteria for a particular project or action
Sourcebook for the EA Process
Lein, J. K. 1993. Formalizing expert judgment in the
environmental impact assessment process. The
Environmental Professional 15:95-102.
National Research Council. 1986. Ecological
Knowledge and Environmental Problem-Solving:
Concepts and Case Studies. National Research
Council, National Academy Press, Washington, D.C.
Thompson, M. A. 1990. Determining impact
significance in EIA: a review of 24 methodologies.
Journal of Environmental Management 30:235-250.
Haug, P. T., R. W. Burwell, A. Stein, and B. L.
Bandwiski. 1984. Determining the significance of
environmental issues under the National
Environmental Policy Act. Journal of Environmental
Management 18:15-24.
to
-------
1 i
£ssMENT METHODOLOGIES
- = ! • I
"
Name
Professional
Standards and
Design
Specifications
Inter-
disciplinary team
development
Application
Determination of
Significance
Scoping
Description
This tool consists of comparing project parameters to
professional standards.
This tool is used to select an interdisciplinary team and
describe the role of team members
1 .Reference
Leistritz,F.L,andS.H,MurdocL 1981. The
Socioeconomic Impact of Resource Development;
Methods for Assessment. Westview Press/ Boulder,
Colorado. 286pp.
Sourcebook for the BA Process
pjjjj!
I i:l
81 !
,5; to
TE-r
*= ,: i'
II (I II
-------
SECTION 2.2
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT
EVALUATION CHECKLIST
-------
•11 Illll II II1
•111 IK Mill
nil in
sir': ,;,,",,;":*
ill 11 i i I ill II iiili
I iii 11 ill 11
ill 11 iiili in in i 11 i
i i
in i iiili in i
f"1
i1 lip;,,:, ::
Iff" it i™; MR W-llllllll, :! I , illllKJII, ,i ' „, ''ii , •'" , i1",lill nil,, iiiLnhlllllll "' ' iLin,!]:,!,"!":,,!!!1:, |, I'i'i'lJ !„,, .fl, Jill:1! , '<,!<;;!' ,,;; , ,,;i ...iffin^'W^ I ll<"!'ii' ' , » " .MV'lir:" !„ ''!!' , i'",!'!".'!'' :||l||,,l!llllll!li!li!l!ll!il!'"l i »,iii,'i,,l df" ,1 iff" |n i nil"!*]1' niitF" ,i • ' :ir", • "Wi" 'Sill*11 Mi ailll1 KIKt',... ";:,,<: III
: |
i,,,1 i1 "ii!! 'I',,' iii'i i,, "' '"'"',1,. : iliSS'K !'"•' 'i ''iliiii „!"!"! liiiii'li'iiiiisiiiii, i allSi i!' iiiiiiii!llw ' ''liii VN"' ',», 'i"':/"!i,i , ,>'iij' i! ii; 'iiiiHiiiiildihii!!!!1"111'"'• >• s ' 'i ' ' '! • ':'" '!*'' .'vSl^ J if1'1 I'Mti1"' .l|i!J'iiii'i,,'!l'"' 'I • ''«.' ,;i' ''"'Vi'i ! iii'iiiiRi! liiiSniiiiiiin ""'i!;:!!1' "' '!' i"'.ri'i
.jr.;i*: i.':; if,:: ' ^i'^'^j:. ii \ *iK-, ,,,i; ^tftf|i " 1ft.'. ^y; i;'"':%•,.;,%.;ii ^jlpa;^;;
ii, mifv i"B*,,i;i!liiiii .','" "-'iwi'i'. : 'i .' i1 . "'itin .'aiiB, t. .'"ii,1"1: us , -u'w i:-." ? i ",i,. ." • Ji."*:,,:,!!! - t \ •! 1.1. ix'f ma. • iiiiiii.:i4ii *?,• IS,M^", t,,v i ;: ..* •liitic11.,"1:. '„.!';' :"'":i f I ''^i^teKMf "© •''
iiiifiiK , •'i iiiiiu I1*, ,-ii ,„•,", ,(i:.r»r ,.iir ,;i,ir:,,;;l|i,ii":, ,'i '," »u,.'. "i.1:,, .• ,,sji ,, '•'«•;•! ff*.1, .1 ,*" J|.i,:(.,, '.!••»• ::.(!••»;• .lii
iB,i«^^^ it , i'" ; i .iiiiiiii.'i , „,,;, """I'l i 'inn i Mill „ V1,;, ,>,•'.•* i .• i ,,i,,i, >'„ in, , .in:"!,,1: ".liS'ii t „ j1,• . • . :n '!,,, • ,:,.-i,!i',..],ii i; .'">..' , «iii!n,:i,.ii,,:,,i in , i:1:;, ,,i,if"LI,tc,:,!'"?i •• I,:,1 Hi;, • ,r.i •:;"i1!' i'K t,liaiililii:,1''f,1!1',:- : '"inin'i I
-------
Environmental Impact Assessment Evaluation Checklist
(Note page numbers refer to Student Text
Principles of Environmental Impact Assessment Review)
Issue and Text Reference
PURPOSE AND NEED
1 . Clear description of underlying need for the proposed
project (p. 4-4)
2. Clear description of purpose of proposed project (p.
4-4)
3. Adequate description of the proposed project (p. 4-4)
PROJECT ALTERNATIVES
1 . Consideration of all relevant alternative types, (p. 4-7)
a. No Action
b. Alternative Sites
c. Alternative Designs
d. Alternative Controls
e. Structural Alternatives
f. Non-structural Alternatives
2. All alternatives satisfy the stated purpose and need for
the project, (p. 4-8)
3. Description of all alternative actions or projects that
were, or are, being considered, (p. 4-8)
a. Size and location of facilities
b. Land requirements
c. Operations and management requirements
d. Auxiliary structures
e. Construction schedules
4. Description of initial environmental impact assessment
processes and results (p. 4-7)
DESCRIPTION OF THE ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING
1 . Region of Concern defined, including boundary areas
(p. 4-12)
2 . Physical-Chemical Environment (p. 4- 1 2)
a. Air Resources (p. 4-13)
1) meteorological data (e.g., temperature, wind)
2) ambient air quality (e.g., participates, ozone)
3) stationary sources of emissions (e.g., power
plants)
JSKA.
Adequately
" Covered
•
'»
JSfot
Adequately
Covered
Comments
2.2-1
-------
.ill"!1 •Ill1 If »i ' 1 lilli.
'Ill IIIlllllll I'll
I If
•ill ill.1! !„«"!' i1 IB:!1
i!S ,'it!1'1 * — '"•
ii'ilriiiK^ lij 'I'1 'i;
jllir ill . ;::i;T!'l. IJlilll,,!:/,. "I
"Billllf > Jl'.i'fPI I- '.i
i I liiilliilill illlilULiiii h
lilil'llllNli.! ii'ilii'l lllHi11 i<':
iiiiiiK
ililJlW^^^^^^ III "illlliH Ililllt'liS' < :l
iiililn^ *M , '• i "St :i i
Issue and Text Reference
4) mobile sources of emissions (e.g., cars and
trucks)
b. Water Resources Op. 4-1 4)
Surface Water:
1) location and type (e.g.,estuaries, streams, lakes,
and their position relative to the site)
2) water quality information (e.g., dissolved
oxygen, temperature, nutrients)
3) existing pollutant sources (location and amount
of discharges)
4) future uses
5) discussion of flooding events
Ground Water:
6) description of key factors (e.g., depth to water
table, overlying soils, geologic features)
7) water quality information (e.g., pH, solids)
c. Soils and Geology (p. 4-16)
1) topography
2) soil structure
3) ground water movement
4) erosion potential
5) subsidence
6) seismic activity (e.g., proximity to faults,
history of earthquakes and volcanic eruptions)
7) mineral resources (e.g., locations of deposits,
types and quantities, ownership of mining
rights)
2. Biological Conditions
a. Wildlife and Vegetation (p. 4-1 8)
1 ) description and listing of aquatic, wetland, and
terrestrial flora and fauna (e.g., species lists,
abundances)
2) description and listing of native species of
wildlife and vegetation present
3) description and listing of particularly invasive
exotic species of wildlife and vegetation
4) description and listing of rare and threatened
species
b. Community and Habitat Characterization
(p. 4-22)
1 ) maps and descriptions of the aquatic, wetland,
and terrestrial communities found in and
around the project site
1*A
Adequately
Covered
JNot
Adequately
Covered
•
Comments
2.2-2
-------
Issue and Text Reference
c. Ecologically Significant Features (p. 4-24)
1 ) support of broader ecosystems by the project
site (e.g., if located along a flyway or other
biological corridor)
2) important ecological functions of the project
site (e.g., nutrient source through flooding,
stormwater retention)
3) characterization of relevant disturbance
regimes, natural and project-induced (e.g.,
floods, fire, potential impact of logging)
4) description of hydrologic processes (e.g.,
ground and surface water flows and durations)
5) description of important biotic interactions
(e.g., interdependence of plants and animals at
the site and with other sites)
4. Waste Management and Pollution Prevention (p. 4-27)
a. Locations of expected waste disposal or discharge
b. Description of waste management techniques (e.g.,
treatment, storage, transport, recycling)
c. Projected waste characteristics (e.g., types,
quantities, toxicity)
5. Socioeconomic Environment (p. 4-28)
a. Land Use (p. 4-29)
1 ) description of present and historic land use
2) map of present and historic land use
b. Population and Housing (p. 4-29)
1) demographic information (e.g., average
household size, average age, age/sex
distributions, ethnic composition, and
community cohesion)
c. Economic Activity (p. 4-30)
1) description of present economic activity (e.g.,
number and type of businesses, annual
revenues, ownership patterns)
2) description of unique features of business
community (e.g., high seasonality of trade,
high outflow of profit, declining of trade, or
downtown revitalization)
3) consideration of interplay among economic
activity, capacity of public services, and fiscal
ability of community to respond to capacity
needs
d. Community Services and Public Finance (p. 4-3 1 )
N/A
Adequately
Covered
,Jfst
Adequately
Covered*
—
Comments
2.2-3
-------
lull lli|
IN.111
Issue ind Text Reference
1) description of existing public facilities and
services within vicinity of project, including
existing level of use and remaining capacity to
accommodate growth
e. Transportation (p. 4-32)
1 ) description of all relevant forms of
transportation for facility
2) current traffic volumes
3) current traffic capacity
4) provision of public transportation
5) assessment of the adequacy of the systems for
meeting peak demands during construction and
operation
f. Health and Safety (p. 4-32)
1) description of present health and safety issues
(e.g,, statistics on industrial accidents,
emissions data from prior and existing
facilities, present levels of noise)
2) identification of special populations or areas
more likely to be exposed to adverse impacts
6. Cultural Resources (p. 4-33)
a. Archaeological sites in relation to the project
b. Paleontological sites in relation to the project
c. Historic sites in relation to the project
d. Educational, religious, scientific, or cultural sites
in relation to the project
ASSESSMENT OF POTENTIAL ENVIRONMENTAL
IMPACTS
The Environmental Impact Assessment discusses primary,
secondary, and cumulative impacts during all stages,
including initial site preparation and construction; facility
operation, and post-facility or site closure for the following
(p, 4-36):
1 . Pollutant Generation, Transport, and Receptors (p. 4-
40)
a. Air Resources (p. 4-40)
1 ) identification of emission sources and project
emission rates and comparison to national,
state, and local standards and limitations
2) comparison of predicted atmospheric levels
with national, state, or local ambient levels
3) description of stack emissions during operation
and maintenance activities and comparison
with existing national, state, and local
standards
'K/A
Adequately
Covered.
- Jfnt
Adequately
Covered
,:'!'' j ' h „ .in '"'. ,:, i, :
Comments
i
s 2.2-4
i
111 IllH I lull i lull I11! HI I III III I I I1 'I I III Ililliiilm I 111 111 i II ill ill n III "I Illllllliil Ililill ill I In1 I Will UN 111
mi liiiiiiiiiiiiiii mi i ii i mi iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii in liiiiiiiiiiiiililiiiiiiiiiiiiii miiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiilniiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii i in i mi ii in mi ii ii iiiiiiiiii i iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii iiiiiii ii 11 mi miiiiiiiiiiiii 1111 • i m iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiniiiiiiii iiiiiiiiiliiiiiiiiii iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiin iiinminnm iiiiiiiii i niiiiiiiiiiiiliiiiiniiii • • mm
-------
Issue and Text: Reference
4) identification of best mitigation measures to
avoid or minimize adverse impacts
b. Water Resources (p. 4-42)
1) address potential for water quality to be
degraded by various factors
2) prediction of pollutant concentrations in water
bodies and comparison with existing national,
state, and local water quality standards and
criteria
3 ) identification of best mitigation measures to
avoid or minimize adverse impacts
c. Geological Resources (p. 4-45)
1) determination of potential soil loss and
mitigation activities
2) identification of potential contamination
sources and mitigation measures
d. Biological Resources (p. 4-46)
1 ) consideration of potential losses of biological
resources within site boundaries
2) description of effluent and emission
concentrations and their potential effects to
vegetation and wildlife
3) discussion of bioaccumulative effects from
facility emissions and discharges
4) identification of best mitigation measures to
avoid or minimize adverse impacts
2. Habitat Alteration (p. 4-46)
a. Biological Resources (p. 4-47)
1) address potential for construction and site
preparation activities to alter critical habitats
for wildlife
2) consideration of potential for secondary
changes in habitats following construction and
site preparation activities
3) assessment of possible permanent loss or
displacement of vegetation habitat due to
operation
4) identification of changes in local species
composition, diversity, and abundances
resulting from loss of specific habitats
5) identification of best mitigation measures to
avoid or minimize adverse impacts
3. Waste Management and Pollution Prevention (p. 4-52)
a. description of facility waste management plan with
procedures for treatment, handling, and disposal
J*/A
Adequately
Covered
-
Jfot
Adequately
Covered
—
Comments
2.2-5
-------
Issue and Text Reference
b. discussion of projected facility waste
characteristics
c. identification of best mitigation measures to avoid
or minimize adverse impacts
4. Socioeconomic Impacts (p. 4-53)
a. Land Use (p. 4-54)
I ) identification of the existing or planned land
use areas lost due to site preparation and
construction activities
2) determination of conflicting zoning
requirements and land uses with site
preparation and construction activities
3) description of anticipated changes in near by
land use as a result of the facility and
evaluation of conflicts that could arise during
operations
4) identification of best mitigation measures to
avoid or minimize adverse impacts
b. Economic Activity (p. 4-57)
1) address changes in employment patterns
2) address ability of available labor pool to meet
project-related employment needs
3) identification of economic multipliers used in
analysis and their source
4) discussion of potential change in overall
economic activity in region
5) identification of best mitigation measures to
avoid or minimize adverse impacts
c. Population and Housing (p. 4-58)
1 ) address the relationship between employment
increases and population in-migration
2) identification of deficiencies in available
housing for the potential increased workforce
and their families
3) identification of best mitigation measures to
avoid or minimize adverse impacts
d. Community Services and Public Finance (p. 4-59)
1 ) identification of deficiencies in community
services and infrastructure during project
construction and operation
2) identification of shortfalls in transportation
capacity due to either primary or secondary
impacts of the project
3) identification of best mitigation measures to
avoid or minimize adverse impacts
3N7A
Adequately
Covered
%**P*
Adequately
Cohered
i
•r- .''
Comments
•
i
>
\ . • • ';
!
I
i
2.2-6
-------
Issue and Text Reference
e. Transportation (p. 4-61)
1 ) assessment of proposed project's consistency
with local and/or regional transportation plans
2) evaluation of changes in LOS resulting from
the proposed project and alternatives
3) evaluation of the effect of heavy vehicle traffic
on affected pavement and bridges
4) description of mitigation measures to offset
adverse impacts to structural integrity and
public safety
f. Health and Safety (p. 4-62)
1) evaluation of whether construction, operation,
and maintenance activities present health and
safety hazards to humans working or living at
or near the project site
2) discussion of potential effects of facility noise
levels on workers, local communities, and local
flora and fauna
3) analysis of potential long-term contaminant .
bioaccumulation within the food chain
4) identification of best mitigation measures to
avoid or minimize adverse impacts
g. Environmental Equity (p. 4-63)
1 ) determination of the equity of changes in
employment patterns attributable to site
preparation and construction activities
2) determination of the equity of community
structure changes caused by project
construction and operation
3) identification of best mitigation measures to
avoid or minimize adverse impacts
5. Cultural Resources (p. 4-63)
a. identification of any historical or cultural resources
in close proximity to the site following
correspondence with appropriate authorities
b. discussion of mitigation measures necessary to
preserve items of archaeological, historical, or
cultural interest
c. determination of the extent to which construction,
operation, and maintenance activities disrupt the
aesthetic or sensory attributes of the site
d. determination of whether the facility components
are designed with consideration given to human
factors
MITIGATION MEASURES
1 . Mitigation Measures (p. 4-68)
N/A
Adequately
Covered
J?Qt
Adequately
Covered
-
Comment*
2.2-7
-------
111 II
II II
ill lllllllll
III 111 111 I lllllllll
I1
III hill * PI I hh i in |
B ||jjji|||ini|i|||i||| , n, ini|||h Muni
li'llil1,)'' i">l. 11 '• •, •.
Ill'Iil ,; i Jillip!'"11 i, ill!" jlllf"'
Issue and Text Reference
a. description of mitigation activities for all
significant impacts to both the natural and human
(socioeconomic) environments
b. description of mitigation measures with adequate
information to evaluate environmental
consequences and residual impacts
c. identification of best mitigation measures to avoid
or minimise potential impacts during all stages of
the project, including siting and design, facility
operation, and post facility closure.
d. support of the following types of mitigation
measures, in the following decreasing order of
preference:
- Avoidance or prevention
- Minimization
- Reduction or elimination over time
- Correction
- Compensation.
e. implementation plan (schedule) and criteria for
performance for all mitigation measures.
f. responsible entity assigned to carrying out each
mitigation measure.
g. measures are socially and culturally acceptable.
h. adequate financial and non-financial resources to
implement the measures.
,' ,',, ,
Adequately
Covered
Not
Adequately
Covered ,
iiiiiii.!!' "i '. «ifiii:,jl'i!>" .'iiiiiii ; Iiiili • i iWi'B : i itt „ - 1 K i i:i, i/u1 ;,, i , i , .•• ,« 11,4: in,, jivs1! , -IP- , v •.** ;-,i( sii ,1:1,1 : «, an! , ijn ivi
illi-il ; i :l11!' i!'i ;: " "' iKW lilillil , , jjllll ; D?* «,!:< *,• • •. ' ' '> . ,1"! ( ',!' '• J" (JIB '« ; - #,.• ,, IXii, ;',f',Sifi tit! • - i '• ' * i>;" t A/ilSti' ! .X &H
1 v ':|h ' " "'I:B|' ! "• * l tS; • 'ii'l'""i|i1'1 : l":' <• ' •' -1J: *''••'•• ;":' • >" ;' • ' : -••*•'' i >•''»• ' " »-' ' • • ' •" *"
Comments
w*:* in" :' it! 'li : i , ' ; ,: P, "i!1 MI Pi11 iiiiiii1 MI • ,1,-iif
i Si'S: •':.'; -*^t-. ,+ ; "SS >:jii .B»T»';iJf*.':i..B,V
'* " "" L ""'^ ' ":v •-'"•""•'•• > | ••- « "•»
iiiifisii, i ." mi(':.)'*• tBur'. luiiiiii^^^ >,;• '.ini ...nAf ;. vi -vi i i":
iHi vn:*"", ,,: ;i' ".i jiiif1'""!i;1'!! : ,'-v<\"i '"i" .'^u „••; ^ •&•:• i,1 ,'""" r :.r M^ imti.^'i ,i,Arcifl
1 I" ! li||l||| 1 >Di:!:N '< m .....
•i1 'iiiiiii ..... i ' «IL ». ....... m f -r r :
llbiff 1IIIL ' ij"!"'!!,1],1! 'I'l.1 I! m" Kill '.|!l ..... :;, ' ,1,; ,, I'- ,,'„!!'! Illhp .....
"
• ill ' ill11! ;:
-j ..... iiii •" ' iEii *
;!;,., ', , ih,,,11.111!, ..... i: ;|,| ...... I! ,' ., ".'jii,,,",,, "ii'ini ujnln, ,„ ,n, •« ...... ,»,' ,, iwir
•? rf ^ \ ;r- : (i j T '",„;. ^I*J 6 .t^Jii i- : Sis if > • > J
.i: 'if iiv r
..........
IIHII!l|l||l|lr "'VIP1 ,,,i .,.»!! Ill pllllFI ..... IN1 r* ,1 ,1,1,,,, i;l!|l|1 ',' \
'iiiillt , T"! ..... "„ illllli ..... |i ...... i,i,; ."I! '"!i! ,i:;,!, V., l'!,iiiil
•••^^^^^^ H/:'I iiiiiiiiiiir iki in''!, /iiiiiiB
•iii liiii"!: "ii: --?1 -i iii:: -i - :- ]=:=•— r
, ,|
19 , ,'„,"'," " ,1:"'1'"1 iri'l""!^''*!,!:'!;!11111 '«!,? • ,.'^ lii'i1' ill ,1'
inn KI, iii!ini9iii!j:iiiiiiiiii|>iiiiiiii*>i:;',jiiiiiiT, ii.ii1' ,]H;:;IIDIIIIII :i: Migiiiiniiiiii" •; H»m ui; ^ :i< i n: a
"' iiuillih'' H ,":" li Ill1 • if. i' I1 i»i!ii3i,!' inlii,1 N ' ",. •' '"i.' ; JimlLifi ;:i hh;,,»r ,i IN „,, „ ,'" .4| f",;,;'", ;„ ,!P|,
, 'i i>i 11' !::i!h°j, ,i iiiiitiir:; :>i • ,' tv ''11 .iiiif
-------
SECTION 3
WORLD BANK PROJECT-SPECIFIC IMPACTS
AND MITIGATION MEASURES
-------
Ill
Il hill I III 111
I II II
ll| V
,: 1111!!!:!1!: I, I,,,!" I Illllllhlii '„,, 'I!'" I "> •• NEIIll! 31, "liiS,,
li liiiiil! iituMV '',!! >l,i ' ii;!, ,:, , *MS! > i.
: IllBililiJ IIIIX.Mnii ' " >i:]
H,1'," I1:,!'!,:,!-, I,;-;S
..... liJiniLW^^ I'i'i ..... ,,'" ,1 i, IIK 'I,,!1 i.lllOTUiiriliii11, Wiilllillill, UIHI I,,!1"! ........ r1,,'! ...... lit,,,,'1
; ii!11 INI, : I l|:, ..li1" I"!
iPiii-iHi-iiJMt'r , , iiiM' "" • ,fJ|,,!! ir, ' niiiiii: Mil ,„•!,;-'' i: iiii'i'ir • :"*n „; i* ;ih "#i&"s •.••.t'.wi
1 li "I",! if1!!! » I* ,; ' IllllEt" It '' '.••£'•*' • ''HOM ISiiliit . -i,,',, ii,:!"!1 jiStM, 'iiul'i'ir!'',!;' 'I i ,!":••'•' 'Si,5'" "UCsi'l!i:1?11,
1 illlllN:, ail'l'l""!l Ullfli "111,/ Mill!!!11 I !'!"! ,! i 'I',! "Jill '. .lilllll'' i[!|i!l!llll[! 'Ill,- I, nil!!"1"1 '!'" in/li-ti'll'l- . ii!, X " ,' '' ",•'",:-!, III,',",]!
illillll Illlllil
nil i ill i
in iiiiiiiiii ,:, iniiiij:,!,,;! i Him in 1111 iiiiiw ,n,:i'
mill liiilll II
I""
S3 I
i, ii'iiniin^ ,111 ,,,,iii .«' ;, niniiii'ii i: ,'i. T iiiiini raj"„;,n
,.1^ : "i itii'V1';" ^ ^Jw'^
1
". iiir fs'V'iii i,'1"11""1!,'-11"'!! I ,i, *:;,,!'*'
iwiiii „. r 'i ii.^<*{ ',"'" 'i "nil"" vjd „: i:f1:,,,;'1,"1.
I5 if *:: $ '.;f ; *'
/ If ^li
.ii'iiii'i"".1!1 uniii'iiiiiiiiHiii, ,11 l
Ilil1"1!! .'Hi" i; fi;ni.nl...'
''U "'nillllnli '",!>,&»; "Hi,: i
il ii 'f'lriPN!, '''.ilH'illl1 I il,l
..•lit1:! ;,..»i j HI •; ii; r :,iif '•" "",!:
IB i,*;!"" ffit ' i iii!i,!is-(ii,r, ., r-si
I:'*!"!1') Si,,:!:!. H;, f li . ,,,i lilllll !">t, '•<",&•} i
, 1,111 •,,"; • ;,f ~;ss 11 *•, ! : w> ,„i E ; • ': ': i;; -. - a, ;- E i!,:• > •':• t vis i:, "i ,• " • :• ,•; K iw! if:-
fill' , 'i1' i,,;"'ii:,™; ' f, iJK t,:' "S, • ••. i? '>". "^ TH:.-11 \1;; ^;: •: i f f! ';-, 'iill'!:;,»" -I:," Ii cr'iiii i" IS j
in Tij
illl.-,*;! i
[m.-iw-.'<: t":"
IPS ..... I, ..... IIU ...... lil
'.;' ..... '.I ...... Ii
-------
SECTION 3.1
INDUSTRIAL IMPACTS
-------
III! Ill III
,!'!"„ ; il'lijhh i! MIL ', ', n" "Illlllllll Pi"1 lll'illi'lI'liT i-II. Jl
,:!;,' JIM lirnn ii'
I 111
llill'lllll ...... Hi!" !:| "I, L,i, '"li'-P' lllllUIIHl" !' il"" • ..... '• , ''"'i i,! 'nillil'iinli /If 'IIP II" "!'! , r . •",• ll „, IM r '» 1!!
1111111111: '"ill"!1 : ''Si'li,!'!1"'1 "Ji I11'1 11 V
ihii '".s;i;ii .; ..... •!,',, H; iii1 i^iiiiiiri:; . Eiiiiiirii'1! i» ..... v ,
.%,' mi i!:i:,,,,i».ii,f! '{','s.i , '..iv; ..... isiw -'i ,' ; ';„!."" ,' i, H,, jii!ii' v!'"1,,:1;! .,;».!•' "• 'iBJMns1:1
..... tji^iniiiiiLiijijfiiii.aiiinninhi^^ ....... igininhiaiinniiiBiiJbiiJ ..... ^iiLiiiiiiiiiiiiii1:;,!,:',! ...... riijiiii
-------
INDUSTRIAL DISCHARGES
Industries
Producing Wastes
Origins of Major Wastes
JMajor Characteristics
Food and Drugs
Canned goods
Trimming, culling, juicing, and
blanching of fruits and vegetables
High in suspended solids,
colloidal and dissolved
organic matter
Dairy products
Brewed and
distilled
beverages
Meat and poultry
products
Beet sugar
Pharmaceutical
products
Yeast
Pickles
Coffee
Dilutions of whole milk, separated
milk, buttermilk, and whey
Steeping and pressing of grain, residue
from distillation of alcohol condensate
from stillage evaporation
Stockyards, slaughtering of animals
rendering of bones and fats, residues
in condensate&,_grease_and_wash. water,
picking of chickens
Transfer, screening and juicing waters,
drainings from lime sludge, condensates
after evaporator, juice, extracted
sugar
Mycelium, spent filtrate and wash
waters
Residue from yeast filtration
Lime water, brine, alum and turmeric,
syrup, seeds and pieces of cucumber
Pulping and fermenting of coffee bean
High in dissolved organic
matter, mainly protein fat,
and lactose
High in dissolved organic
solids, containing nitrogen
and fermented starches or
their products
High in dissolved and sus-
pended organic matter,
bloodr-other proteins, and
fats
High in dissolved and sus-
pended organic matter,
containing sugar and
protein
High in suspended and
dissolved organic matter
including vitamins
High in solids (mainly
organic) and BOD
Variable pH, high suspended
solids, color, and organic
matter
*
High BOD and suspended
solids
3.1-1
-------
Fish
Rice
Soft drinks
Rejects from centrifuge, pressed fish, Very high BOD, total
evaporator and other wash water wastes organic solids, and odor
ii T"!11' ' * 'I ..... * '"
T"!11' ' * 'I ..... * '"• 'll'ilK Tillpii ..... :;„ hi , us ..... ul1 ,i; W!^ > " I1 ifi:: " ..... niwiif " i w , ' a ..... n ..... linn1 air , win , ! ; .......... . : • ira I' i ;
'!""» ...... ••' "H ........... ' ................. "I ....... it 1 ..... ' ;i 'i|ll«"i ..... KSehi«li,j -rii: .......... : ...... iii";i, 'it '!• ..... 5 ...... is; i .,"; ii,1 i ' ..... :• ..... ;;•: iifjii ..... iasjiii ......... ifJ/'i'Hiii ..... 'Jilt
; ....... u , " ' :„;•: KCii!'1 ' i :; i. ' •' : • : p ii- 1 w ' si ..... ill ..... i ,i
i' '' ' ! ..... ,,"* ,1,;,:: -vit. ..... i ..... 'liLi iVi "Ai1 '!'
Soaking, cooking, and washing of rice
Bottle washing, floor and equipment
cleaning, syrup-storage-tank drains
High in BOD, total and sus-
pended solids, (mainly
starch)
il
High pH, suspended solids
and BOD
» IMIIIII ........ iiiifiiiih ..... ,« i ......... ' 1 1
^tSV . IBiiiiC' -" -iliil'ii
•!.' WllliJi!'!1'! j:i""i I, :!>' in1
' '
Apparel
Textiles
Cooking of fibers, desizing of fabric
! Jj
Highly alkaline, colored,
? high BOD and temperature,
IlliillH i, •' il i .,„! I ; 'lilililiin11 'NiUlllli ii'iiii, ji'lnSII'l „!!!!', ,,,i| Iflli IliU'lliili f'l ,,,..F lilm ', !i. |T, 11"""; .ni ,L I,'1" '111", i1!!,,,.'L.TI' M1, ' ': f." • •' "l!< .1 i!1'!»fl J" M"" "y,!11!'"',1, Jl'lf™ t'liilh ilSulhO A
•F!! iji, .• i;' ;;i"i '•'! ifM'. :;;i!:Ili -i1 s-. ?t <3ism iJfWt ii a ,:*'"}, if:': !!* • i,« m ! •;" i i * : ' -I. tf! M«« "%• V* "ii iii KfeC ' CM cnerideS solids
iiiiii; jS.M'ii'Jiii jiiii'iiiiiit ' f-S: *• i'-Fiiit1"*?1!!!". "In,11''', «, '• ".:;• it'i"' .'»i sYi.'iih i" "if'iJ" • '^"'iiLipSS''''^^. ::i:',.';,!/ i OlgH SUapCilucu auu
li.'^i'tf1-
,','IM IP,i, , '" 'iiKj; ,,,,ii'!',,»i:'
n iii
i i mi i n ii in 1
• •iii i ii11 ii 11 ! HP
III,, Lr ill'lllllllllllll"!'Jli ' "llillll'lllll'llllll.
3.1-2
jj
i^^^ iiiu^ .i/ii'iih..!;iiiiii - "„: r:,::::,,:: :::: i\:^ «
-------
INDUSTRIAL DISCHARGES
Industries
Producing Wastes
Origins of Maior Wastes
Maior Characteristics
Leather goods
Laundry trades
Unhairing, soaking, deliming and bating High total solids, hardness,
hides salt, sulfides, chromium,
ph, precipitated lime
and BOD
Washing of fabrics
High turbidity, alkalinity,
and organic solids
Chemicals
Acids
Detergents
Cornstarch
Dilute wash waters; many varied dilute Low pH, low organic content
acids
Washing and purifying soaps and
detergents
High in BOD and saponified
soaps
Evaporator condensate, syrup from final High BOD and dissolved
from final washes, wastes from organic matter; mainly
-"bottling up"~process starch and related material
Explosives
Insecticides
Phosphate and
phosphorous
Formaldehyde
Washing TNT and guncotton for purifica- TNT, colored, acid, odorous,
tion, washing and pickling of and contians organic acids
cartridges and alcohol from powder and
cotton, metals, acid, oils&
and soaps
Washing and purification products such
as 2,4D and DDT
Washing, screening, floating rock,
condenser bleed-off from phosphate
reduction plant
Residues from manufacturing synthetic
resins, and from dyeing synthetic
3.1-3
High organic matter,
benzene ring structure,
toxic to bacteria and fish,
acid
Clays, slimes and tall oils,
low pH, high suspended
solids, phosphorous, silica,
and fluoride.-
Normally has high BOD and
HCHO, toxic to bacteria in
-------
fibers
high concentrations
i in i in in I Hi
Materials
Pulp and
paper
IIIIIIUiil li mil ,11 Jillilllllli'llli, h, ipipllPlligilP
Photographic
products
Steel
Metal-plated
products
Cooking, refining, washing of fibers
screening of paper pulp
Spent solutions of developer and fixer
Coking of coal, washing of blast-
furnace flue gases, and pickling of
steel
Stripping of oxides, cleaning and
plating of metals
Sigh or low pH; colored,
high suspended, colloidal,
and dissolved solids, in-
organic fillers
Alkaline, contains organic
and inorganic reducing
agents
|, ;,,,;,,::, ,„,:;, .,
Low pH, acids, cyanogen,
phenol, ore, coke, limestone,
alkali, oils, mill scale,
and fine suspended solids
1 ;
Acid, metals, toxic, low
volume, mainly mineral matter
"|;:i!' iJlillIlHi,,;:1!*11, ."Ill:jj> ' "M hill!" V Jli illliiiri 1, \ • ' V- J' a. ..
iii'Miiirit ,:t"V:
time, i ,:, MiK HILI ",,, !»;
1H illillHllllii J1 IV I1"!1!:1 Wl ^i.jnt
II!llil!1!11' t&W Kill'"' ""!
i1':, it 'l-W* iNB,•: 1 : . Ei-ff! ili
I y
"'] I"*, Ifi'ilf .........
'KtM; i'f,i ...... r;1!! ...... .»;:,• ,
IBID ,,11,1:11 iiiii ..... in, ....... ..... '
f rJBt .'T'^S •*»••; hi
,1 - ,' -li'Uli, '• WOll'll1 ' in Ill , -liiil",,"1, ,',:-,i,ii iiiiiMi Hi,,,,;,; f,: r ;i
1 I ,1 Ill, ,i ,,,,1 , in N ,„ .11,1 1 ,,
11 "I1,":"1 '.I"1!'",!'!1!1,'"1 iWlriTi, J"1:,, ,n;;| i j;,,!,,,||||"
.' - ....... I*!1' :»„ ......... ! i"! V , ........ S, ............ ,';! ,'"' .............. .,!' ...... • ....... :-;.; ............... ill ........ Jiff"
.»
I ;* '.;3. 1 -4
""if
i:!;!:!;:!!!1!1!
. ..... /' „ •. .l
" 'i'i ..... ,,„ ...... ;, , • • f,, , -,
-------
INDUSTRIAL DISCHARGES
Industries
Producing Wastes
Origins of Major Wastes
Major Characteristics
Iron-foundry
products
Oil
Rubber
Glass
Naval stores
Wasting of used sand by hydraulic
discharge
Drilling muds, salt, oil, and some
natural gas, acid sludges and
and miscellaneous oils from refining
Washing of latex, coagulated rubber
exuded impurities from cured rubber
Polishing and cleaning of glass
Washing of stumps, drop solution,
solvent recovery, and oil recovery water
High suspended solids,
mainly sand; some clay and
coal
High dissolved salts from
field, high BOD, odor,
phenol, and sulfur compounds
from refinery
High BOD and odor, high
suspended solids, variable
pH, high chlorides
Red color, alkaline non-
settleable suspended solids
Acid, high BOD
Energy
Steam power
Coal
processing
Nuclear powec
and radio-
active
materials
Cooling water, boiler blowdown
coal drainage
Cleaning and classification of coal
leaching of sulfur strata with water
Processing ores, laundering of con-
taminated clothes, research-lab wastes
processing of fuel, power-plant cooling
waters
Hot,high volume, high
inorganic and dissolved
solids
High suspended solids, mainly
coal; low pH, high H2SO4
and FeSO4
Radioactive elements, can be
very acid and "hot"
"hot"
3.1-5
-------
i in 11 (11(11 ill mi
I Hill i ill
iP Hi
III I
(I" i( (' ' 111
-------
SECTION 3.2
PROJECT SPECIFIC MITIGATION MEASURES
WORLD BANK TABLES
-------
"I' llPil! 'llll ''"'MiWjL'iill"1
ii n n 11 in in
lip,1111 .rjlLJIJii,;,,!; r,*"';? :", a ""'*'»!'*', !;!,, ""liii!1:!!'!!1!1,;!,!,,!!!;'
Kir!1llill»^ : IPILPP1' -' EMiiBlil " ' i,l ","!'"« ' J1
1' „ 4 itti,,;";P!"; Hjiirfiv,, jippi;,],, .v; ijE'iii,'!
'i,'1 ,1, fti ',:"pif! iiH'j1, ^^l;i:\>p|>rr^ii>tiiiii;,il>
'I, lh,;FI| , If ,,,1, illlhiil'''!.:; ' ; ^iyiit
' „ il I11/
-------
Table 8.1. Agroindustry
Potential Negative Impacts
Mitigating Measures
OJ
ho
Direct: Site Selection
1. Siting of plant or facility complex on/near sensitive habitats.
2. Siting of agroindustry along water courses leading to their eventual
degradation.
3. Siting of agroindustry so that air pollution problems are aggravated.
Direct: Agricultural Practices
4. Environmental deterioration (erosion, contamination of water and soil,
loss of soil fertility, disruption of wildlife habitat, etc.) from
intensification of agricultural land use.
1. • Location of plant in rural area away from estuaries, wetlands, or
other sensitive or ecologically important habitats, or in industrial
estate to minimize or concentrate the stress on local environment and
services.
• Involvement of natural resource agencies in review of siting
alternatives.
2. • Site selection examining alternatives which minimize environmental
effects and not preclude beneficial use of the water body using the
following siting guidelines:
• on a watercourse having a maximum dilution and waste absorbing
capacity
• in an area where wastewater can be reused with minimal treatment
for agricultural or industrial purposes
• within a municipality which is able to accept the plant wastes in
their sewage treatment system
3. Location of plant at a high elevation above local topography, in an area
not subject to air inversions, and where prevailing winds are away from
populated areas.
4. Control of agricultural inputs and cropping/grazing practices to
minimize environmental problems.
-------
f pa
t *•
I -?
i ^
i -
•
i —
i S' is i";:*
? " -:i:^: ?r ' -' = "
; M 1^=4 U)J
( ^ -- tO^'
isi^iC ;?
i
, : *
!
!i
i:3»: .,s;l. ';
M
! »?S ! 'i^ T = -s : ! i
l
Table 8.1. Agroindustry (continued)
I Si
Ml
i 53
I K
Potential Negative Impacts
Direct: Plant Operation
5. Aggravation of solid waste problems in the area.
•:" 6. • Water pollution from discharge of liquid effluents.
: • Plant: TSS; temperature; pH
• Materials storage piles runoff: TSS; pH
Mitigating Measures
:= 7. Particulate emissions to the atmosphere from all plant operations.
5. • For facilities producing large volumes of waste, incorporation of the
following guidelines in site selection:
• plot size sufficient to provide a landfill or on-site disposal '"
• proximity to a suitable disposal site
• convenient for public/private contractors to collect and haul;«
solid wastes for final disposal , ^i
6. Laboratory analysis of liquid effluent (including cooling water runoff!'
from waste piles) in O/G, TDS, TSS, BOD, COD and in-situ j:
temperature monitoring. ;
ii
All plants, or as indicated by agroindustrv type
&
• No cooling water discharge; if recycling not feasible, discharge
cooling water only if receiving water temperature does not rise :
>3°C. «
• Maintain pH level of effluent discharge between 6.0 and 9.0. j;
• Control effluent to EPA specified limitation (40 CFR 405-409;432) I
for specific process. "
• Land application of waste effluents where appropriate; the,:^
"Industrial Hazard Management" section should be consulted for I
guidelines regarding industrial hazardous materials. ;!
r
7. Control of participates by fabric filter collectors or electrostatic l|
precipitators. f
s ^j
I
-------
Table 8.1. Agroindustry (continued)
Potential Negative Impacts
Mitigating Measures
Direct: Plant Operation (continued)
8. Gaseous and odor emissions to the atmosphere from processing 8.
operations.
Control by natural scrubbing action of alkaline materials; an analysis
of raw materials during feasibility stage of project can determine levels
of sulfur to properly design emission control equipment.
9. Accidental release of potentially hazardous solvents, acidic and alkaline
materials.
Indirect
9. Maintenance of storage and disposal areas to prevent accidental release;
provide spill mitigation equipment.
OJ
to
10. • Occupational health effects on workers due to fugitive dust, 10.
materials handling, noise, or other process operations.
• Accidents occur at higher than normal frequency because of level of
knowledge and skill.
Development of a Safety and Health Program in the facility
designed to identify, evaluate, and control safety and health hazards
at a specific level of detail to address the hazards to worker health
and safety and procedures for employee protection, including any
or all of the following:
• site characterization and analysis
• site control
• training
• medical surveillance
• engineering controls, work practices and
personal protective equipment
• monitoring
• information programs
• handling raw and process materials
• decontamination procedures
• emergency response
• illumination
• regular safety meetings
• sanitation at permanent and temporary facilities
-------
M
11
1 ! 1
i (' i ii
II! = !! I I 1 I = !
Table 8.1. Agroindustry (continued) J
= ; ^^jf;
,: , «
i- i j
i ™!
^Hi«" i HE;
3E:,,n jjsl
; *( bnii M i S*i
I Sjl
iMiM Hi1 i
., ,si ! 'M ; , , , =!i i;,:!! i MI
!i ii: ; »«i ;
Potential Negative Impacts
Mitigating Measures
Indirect (continued)
II V
11. Regional solid waste problem exacerbated by inadequate on-site
storage.
11. Plan for adequate on-site disposal areas assuming screening for
hazardous characteristics of the leachate is known.
r.
BI
*
» to
12. Transit patterns disrupted, noise and congestion created, and
pedestrian hazards aggravated by heavy trucks transporting raw
materials and products to/from facility.
12. Site selection can mitigate some of these problems, but special
transportation sector studies should be prepared during project
feasibility to select best routes to reduce impacts; transporter
regulation and development of emergency contingency plans to
minimize risk of accidents.
- 13. Disease transmission from inadequate waste disposal.
13. Develop specifications for product preparation and/or processing, and
waste disposal processes; monitor fecal coliform or other bacteria; and
require documentation of waste disposal site monitoring.
KB -== 1-
14:4- -
=t* &
Si r
!ii
n
-------
Table 8.1. Agroindustry (continued)
Potential Negative Impacts
Mitigating Measures
The following guidelines are World Bank guidelines. If they cannot be achieved, the appraisal and/or supervisory mission should fully document the
reasons for deviations. Where local regulations differ from those below, the stricter regulations should prevail.
U)
NJ
Ul
Leather Tanning and Finishing
Waste constituents:
Washing and soaking
Degreasing
Dehairing
Bating
Pickling
Tanning
Retanning, coloring
Finishing
BOD5, TSS
BOD$, TSS, 0/G
BODS, TSS, pH, sulfides, nitrogen
Ammonia nitrogen
Acids, salt
Chromium, vegetable tannins
Color, oil
none
Leather Tanning and Finishing
EPA Effluent Guidelines and Standards or use the following general
guidelines.
Constituent
B
D
BOD,
TSS
0/G
Sulfides
Tot. Cr.
TKN
PH
Fecal Col.
2.8
3.0
1.1
0.010
0.10
0.54
3.2
3.6
1.3
0.012
0.12
0.64
6.0
Not
2.6
2.8
1.0
0.010
0.10
0.50
to 9.0
over 400
1
1
0
0
0
0
per
.0
.2
.48
.004
.04
.20
100ml
3.2
3.6
1.3
0.012
0.12
0.62
1.4
1.6
0.68
0.006
0.06
0.28
Plant Categories by Primary Process
pulp hair; tanning-chrome; finishing
save hair; tanning-chrome; finishing
save hair; tanning-vegetable; finishing
hair previously removed; tanned previously; finishing
hair previously removed or retained; tanning-chrome;
A: Beamhouse
B: Beamhouse
C: Beamhouse
D: Beamhouse
E: Beamhouse
finishing
F: Beamhouse - pulp or save; tanning-chrome or no tanning; no
finishing
-------
!l!l I | j| j
....... miHHum.
i m as, ilM!! IB ii! I ;:. «; E
! if- ,« '! :• M! -.! I
I IB 3; lt!:i: ;j • :
i 'I m
;; i
i5i!:?| ii.llh 1
!i
«! I
N
. :r"!;s :-L
13
11
I I ll I I •!
I «« M I '
Table 8.1. Agroindustry (continued)
II I
iil!
Potential Negative Impacts
Mitigating Measures
PMi
iJPalm Oil Mills
m
111
Waste streams are acidic and have high TSS, O/G, and BOD5.
rT;fl*
trf
»«
tos
SiS Ni
''Slaughterhouses
Most important liquid effluent parameters are: BODj, TSS, O/G, pH, and
fecal coliform organisms.
Palm Oil Mill Effluent Control
Limitations for liquid effluent include:
pH 6 to 9
BOD <100mg/l
COD <1000mg/l
TSS <500mg/l
It is feasible to achieve 100 percent reduction of pollutant and waste effluent
discharged to surface waters by one of the following:
• spray irrigation
• land application
• evaporation ponds
• discharge to municipal sewage treatment systems
Slaughterhouse Maximum Daily Effluent Limitations
Plant Tvoe BOD (&) TSS (b) O/G oH
simple
complex
0.12
0.21
0.20
0.25
0.06
0.08
6-9
6-9
Live wt killed
MPN fecal coliform count < 400 per 100 ml
a) per kg
b) per megagram
-------
Table 8.1. Agroindustry (continued)
Potential Negative Impacts
Mitigating Measures
Wool Scouring
Raw waste contains significant quantities of O/G whose biodegradability
constituents a special problem.
Sulfur is brought in with wool, as well as phenolic and other organic
compounds; this could be discharged to receiving waters.
Grease recovery step is necessary to decrease potential pollution from O/G.
Liquid Effluent Guidelines: Mg = megagram; mg = milligram
to
•Ij
BOD,
TSS
COD
O/G
Total Chromium
Phenol
Sulfide
Pesticides
5 Kg/Mg product
4 Kg/Mg product
20 Kg/Mg product
7.2 mg/1
0.1 mg/1
0.1 mg/1
0.2 mg/1
0.01 mg/1
J
-------
= !
Table 8.2. Dams and Reservoirs
i i
Potential Negative Impacts
Mitigating Measures
Direct
1. • Negative environmental effects of construction:
• air and water pollution from construction and waste disposal
• soil erosion
• destruction of vegetation, sanitary and health problems from
construction camps
* ;"; 2. Dislocation of people living in inundation zone.
mi Z Loss of land (agricultural, forest, range, wetlands) by inundation to
: ;;*!!) form reservoir.
fi _ i a? i:S .it
„;>;
,;;,, 4. Loss of historic, cultural or aesthetic features by inundation.
tj iij
»:«> 5. Ldss of wildlands and wildlife habitat.
•=- i== |i;
• 6. Proliferation of aquatic weeds in reservoir and downstream impairing
si;j; dam discharge, irrigation systems, navigation and fisheries and
- - '?- ai'" increasing water loss through transpiration.
1. • Measures to minimize impacts:
• air and water pollution control ' -
• careful location of camps, buildings, borrow pits,
quarries, spoil and disposal sites
• precautions to minimize erosion
• land reclamation
2. Relocation of people to suitable area, provision of compensation in kind
for resources lost, provision of adequate health services, infrastructure,
and employment opportunities.
3. Siting of dam to decrease losses; decrease size of dam and reservoir;:
protect equal areas in region to offset losses. :
4. Siting of dam or decrease of reservoir size to avoid loss; salvage or
protection of cultural properties.
5. Siting of dam or decrease of reservoir size to avoid/minimize loss;
establishment of compensatory parks or reserved areas; animal rescue
and relocation. ~
6. Clearance of woody vegetation from inundation zone prior to flooding:
(nutrient removal); provide weed control measures; harvest of weeds |
for compost, fodder or biogas; regulation of water discharge and
manipulation of water levels to discourage weed growth.
in-: EM!
~s i P : ^-
IIH
-------
Table 8.2. Dams and Reservoirs (continued)
Potential Negative Impacts
Mitigating Measures
Direct (continued)
7. Deterioration of water quality in reservoir.
7. • Clearance of woody vegetation from inundation zone prior to
flooding.
• Control of land uses, wastewater discharges, and agricultural
chemical use in watershed.
• Limit retention time of water in reservoir.
• Provision for multi-level releases to avoid discharge of anoxic water.
k>
8. Sedimentation of reservoir and loss of storage capacity.
9. Formation of sediment deposits at reservoir entrance creating backwater
effect and flooding and waterlogging upstream.
10. Scouring of riverbed below dam.
11. Decrease in floodplain (recession) agriculture.
8. » Control of land use in watershed (especially prevention of conversion
of forests to agriculture).
• Reforestation and/or soil conservation activities in watersheds (limited
affect).
• Hydraulic removal of sediments (flushing, sluicing, release of density
currents).
9. Sediment flushing, sluicing.
10. Design of trap efficiency and sediment release (e.g., sediment flushing,
sluicing) to increase salt content of released water.
11. Regulation of dam releases to partially replicate natural flooding regime.
-------
! I
f I
I! I I 3 1 ' !MI ! !!» : :!l ! ! I
:i! i«:i H!
:jj; ;jpJ igs | : j
: M I if1*; r>* i vf t ;, ig si BIS i i : ,,i i i i
:H; : ai : HSM ,is i !:
H ii
a| I
3 :; i
• ijl
I If
'": ;is: , oi ': _ ,....
Table 8.2. Dams and Reservoirs (continued)
;;" i
'
» - y
j:^ J
; ;'=; -, =jpjw
Ml; r ^ftS^i
i iir i-i^>!wj>—*i
" ":s -"=- 'tfyfOn
i:« s
i .!' M
?
i • * * .*=^-- v1
. ;; ^
! 11* 2 «
;11! !
--.- =^r:ri> r^
;*-f¥s v
! US ii i l*f
i ^
i ^ ;; ;> s
i ;.' • ---" -'-
i fit - : ;
UN * =ff= a 1=*
!l: i-. :1« '
I Direct (continued)
i i
, 12. Salinization of floodplain lands.
: 13. Salt water intrusion in estuary and upstream.
' " 14. Disruption of riverine fisheries due to changes in flow, blocking of fish
: ; migration, and changes in water quality and limnology.
; 1 IS. Snagging of fishing nets in submerged vegetation in reservoir.
-p
I j
j 16. Increase of water-related diseases.
{17. Conflicting demands for water use.
18. Social disruption and decrease hi standard of living of resettled people
! MJ
12. Regulation of flow to minimize effect.
13. Maintenance of at least minimum flow to prevent intrusion.
14. Maintenance of at least minimum flow for fisheries; provision of fish *
ladders and other means of passage; provide protection of spawning •
grounds; aquaculture and development of reservoir fisheries hi i
compensation. :
IS. Selective clearance of vegetation before flooding.
16. • Design and operation of dam to decrease habitat for vector.
• Vector control.
• Disease prophylaxis and treatment.
17. Planning and management of dam in context of regional development ;
plans; equitable allocations of water between large and small holders
and between geographic regions of valley. :
18. Maintenance of standard of living by ensuring access to resources at ;
! i i
iti
ii!
•ill
lil
)'»
=
=1
i: "4=^^ * ! s
:r. ™ ~ »
J ! i
«S i ^^k
!s fl," . y j ^B
= » = ^>::sv "- --"?:-'
i .°===^i= ^ =
• i
least equalling those lost; provision of health and social services.
I ; ii is II
. r : i: i M 5
I i Ii 1 ti =
'-- \'-f. y>
~s = = 1 III
i : 11 t 111
i i: i iii
-------
Table 8.2. Dams and Reservoirs (continued)
Potential Negative Impacts
Mitigating Measures
Direct (continued)
19. Environmental degradation from increased pressure on land.
19. • Choice of resettlement site to avoid surpassing carrying capacity of
the land.
• Increase of productivity or improve management of land (agri-
cultural, range, forestry improvements) to accommodate higher
population.
20. Disruption/destruction of tribal/indigenous groups.
20. Avoid dislocation of unacculturated people; where not possible,
relocate in area allowing them to retain lifestyle and customs.
21. Increase in humidity and fog locally, creating favorable habitat for
insect disease vectors (mosquitos, tsetse).
21. Vector control.
Indirect
22. Uncontrolled migration of people into the area, made possible by
access roads and transmission lines.
22. Limitation of access, provision of rural development and health
services to try to minimize impact.
-------
mi! : a i
Nil I "" '
II IP r! i
!!!'!
liiii r^J^S:
Mi
M:
Mi J f i
tii ,
tsi
-- == = _. i^i^-^ -= =
! = is mi, J=L vf
I -: f, P;J ; - = s;
S! B? •:
!p Bi!
•
«j
SB!
• = p
I B
I ij !
(;
• I I! M i !
-------
Table 8.3. Fisheries
Potential Negative Impacts
Mitigating Measures
NJ
Direct Impacts: Capture Fisheries
1. Overexploitation of fisheries stock and long-term degradation of the
resource base.
2. Capture of non-target species and habitat damage through use of
certain equipment and fishing practices.
Fisheries management for optimum sustained yield:
• restricted harvests (minimum size limits, catch quotas,
seasonal closures)
• gear restrictions (trawl bans, specified net mesh sizes)
• closure of areas (permanent reserves, periodic closures)
• limited entry systems (licensing, exclusive access)
• prohibited practices (use of explosives, drift nets)
• consideration of sustainable traditional fishery practices
and incorporation to extent possible in modem fisheries
management systems
Limitation or prohibition of use of such equipment and fishing
practices.
Testing and pilot scale use prior to large scale introduction of new
technologies.
Expanded use of fish by development of new products and markets.
3. Pollution from oil and fuel spills and leakage, and from bilge
flushing.
3. • Public education programs on proper fuel and oil handling and bilge
waste disposal.
• Provision of storage and handling facilities, bilge evacuation and
services.
See "Inland Navigation" arid "Port and Harbor Facilities" sections
in Chapter 9.
-------
III!
In1
11!
Ih
• •= =
HI
*!
IH
II
II
if- p
.. - -^ "-'-.=- -"-=== i= s- , = =- ; =MH= - ii - = ^ i .i:i Ljifc L
!(< ; ,j ,! «"-i
m i iiii
_:..:"::*!!
P S:
i iri
Potential Negative Impacts
Direct Impacts: Capture Fisheries (continued)
Mitigating Measures
4. Diver and anchor damage.
fl
!i
in
GU
fi!
to
5. "Ghost-fishing'' and navigational hazards from abandoned or lost
fishing nets and traps.
6. Use of explosives and poison.
7. Introduction of exotics leading to degradation of native stocks.
i
Direct: Culture Fisheries
8. Clearing/conversion of coastal wetlands for construction of ponds.
4. • Public education programs for fishermen on effects of damage and
ways to avoid it.
• Installation of mooring buoys.
• Designation of anchoring locations.
5. Public education programs for fishermen on hazards of abandoning
gear.
6. Prohibition of practices and enforcement of regulations.
7. Prohibition of exotics introduction.
8. • Prohibition of ponds in area of particular ecological significance.
• Limitation of area converted to ponds.
• Intensified management in existing and new ponds to discourage
"shifting aquaculture" and low-input, extensive aquaculture which
converts large areas.
il
i |I!1
-------
Table 8.3. Fisheries (continued)
Potential Negative Impacts
Mitigating Measures
Direct: Culture Fisheries (continued)
9. Erosion and siltation problems arising in construction phase.
9. • Restriction of clearance to area needed for ponds.
• Pond construction during dry seasons.
• Stabilization of exposed soil with grasses or other ground covering.
10. Competition of ponds for water and land resources demanded by other
users.
11. Loss of productivity or formation of toxic conditions in ponds from
high temperatures, low oxygen and waste accumulation.
12. Acidification of pond water due to hydrogen sulfide formation.
10. • Assessment of existing traditional land and water use and
agricultural, industrial and municipal demands.
• Planning, management and continuing negotiations to reach
acceptable distribution of resources.
• Siting of pond to avoid disruption of traditional uses of water for
washing and drinking.
• Coordination of aquaculture ponds with other activities to double-up
on water use (e.g., pond water reused for irrigation).
11. Adequate pond water exchange and frequent pond flushing.
12. • Siting in areas not susceptible to acidification (avoid waterlogged
soils high in pyrite and organic matter).
• Adequate pond water exchange and flushing.
-------
a 1 !j I I
m
I l PI !
— ==r - i?=- -V53 •--= F '=s -i^irr ^i p^ -_ = -"-""- = _
= j- i!i lmj;T; i
-, --: ;» *-" i ^
. 4 i=s ;a^
i i •
: Table 8.3. Fisheries (continued)
;S1
Potential Negative Impacts
Mitigating Measures
ii
ll
U)
to
1—"
0\
Direct: Culture Fisheries (continued)
13. Local depletion of larval and juvenile organisms for pond stocking.
14. Water pollution from pond effluent (nutrient-rich and with varying
chemical content depending on intensity of pond management).
IS. Introduction of exotics with subsequent damage to native stocks by
competition, predation, spread of disease and parasites.
13. Production of larvae and juveniles in nursery. '_
14. • Release into water body with adequate dilution and dispersal
capability.
• Dilution prior to release. ''
• Timing of release with period of high water. f
• Shorter retention time of water in pond: more frequent pond water
exchange and flushing.
• Treatment of water prior to release.
15. • Avoidance of exotic introductions except where adequate knowledge
of biology and life history of species indicates low risk of negative
impacts and where adequate safeguards against escape are taken.
• Regular monitoring for disease and parasites; if present and
spreading, elimination of infected populations.
Consideration of using sterile hybrids.
-------
Table 8.3. Fisheries (continued)
Potential Negative Impacts
Mitigating Measures
Direct: Culture Fisheries (continued)
16. Spread of disease in aquaculture stocks and into natural stocks when
stocking becomes too dense.
16. • Monitoring of disease incidence.
• Limitation of numbers when disease is positively correlated with fish
densities.
• If disease spreads, elimination of diseased individuals.
UJ 17. Concentration of pens, pilings, and rafts in natural (non-pond) water
io bodies to extent that navigation is hampered, water circulation is
•-> restricted, water quality is decreased, and capture fisheries precluded.
17. Regulation of aquaculture activity to limit it to acceptable intensity.
External Impacts: Capture Fisheries and Culture Fisheries
18. Dams which alter water quality and stream flows and disrupt riverine
and floodplain fisheries.
19. Irrigation schemes which alter water quality and quantity.
18. • Establishment of reservoir fishery. Water release management to
minimize damage to fisheries (see "Dams and Reservoirs" section).
19. • Development of fishery activities in conjunction with irrigation
systems (e.g., use of pond water for irrigation, traps and nets in
irrigation canals).
• Management of irrigation schemes to minimize damage to fisheries
(see "Irrigation and Drainage" section).
-------
ij! !
il iiiiii! I
i!
HP! ir», Sl| ; I I I I 1 1 i 11
II
in i
-,. . ~ Hr-
f able £3. Fisheries (cootii»ed)
:i*•! "^'
•SI :!
li'ii ^P i =
iii£ iiiiii ! =
~ i
s - , i i :* E" -
T ; » - - =
ii:;1! MI M[
IH;; ,ii!!i.
;di!;l ^ Mi
;:::B:::J
Potential N^ative Impacts
Mitigating Measures
External Impacts: Capture Fisheries and Culture Fisheries (continued)
20. Land use and agricultural practices in watersheds affecting sediment
content and water quality.
20. • Integrated watershed planning and management.
• Close coordination between fisheries and government agencies-
responsible for resource management in watersheds to alert them
to impacts on fisheries.
H oo-
21. Flood control measures damaging to water quantity and quality and
aquatic habitats.
22. Pollution from industrial effluent, sewage and agrochemicals affecting
fish survival and tainting fish.
23. Air pollution and acid rain affecting fish survival.
24. Coastal development involving dredging, filling, destruction of
mangrove swamps, construction and infrastructure development.
25. Oil pollution from coastal and inland navigation, and spills from
drilling, transport operations, and oil tankers (cleaning of tanks).
26. Water-based tourism development which conflicts with fishing
activities.
21. See "Flood Protection" section.
22. See" Wastewater Collection, Treatment, Reuse, and Disposal Systems"
section in Chapter 9; see also the sections on "Plant Siting and
Industrial Estate Management" and "Industrial Hazard Management"
in Chapter 10.
23. See "Atmospheric Pollution" section in Chapter 2.
24. See "Coastal Zone Management" section; "Port and Harbor Facilities"
projects are discussed in Chapter 9.
25. See the following sections in Chapter 9: "Inland Navigation" and "Port
and Harbor Facilities"; "Oil and Gas Development-Offshore" and
"Oil and Gas Development-Onshore" are examined in Chapter 10.
26. See "Tourism Development" section hi Chaptw 9.
-r
-------
Table 8.3. Fisheries (continued)
Potential Negative Impacts
Mitigating Measures
Indirect Impacts: Capture Fisheries and Culture Fisheries
27. Creation or expansion of port areas, shore facilities and infrastructure 27. See "Plant Siting and Industrial Estate Management"; "Coastal Zone
(roads, water, power) for processing and transport of fish products. Management"; and "Port and Harbor Facilities."
28. Pollution from effluent discharged from industrial fish processing
plants.
to
28. • Discharge into waters with adequate dilution and dispersal
capabilities.
• Water quality monitoring for suspended solids, oil and grease,
dissolved oxygen, nitrogen and coliform.
a Reduction of wastes by recycling into usable products, reduction of
water use.
• Treatment of waste prior to release.
-------
.. .
= -=sr- ^ :=• s
Table 8.4. Rood Protection
i
i r
- s
Potential Negative Impacts
Mitigating Measures
- to
Direct
1. Flooding of lesser magnitude, but greater duration of flood-
plain downstream due to dam releases.
2. Potential for structural failure and floodwaters higher than
capacity of control structures/measures, leading to increased risk
to life and property because local pre-project adaptations are
relaxed or abandoned or increased development on the
floodplain has occurred post-project.
3. Cycle of enrichment and groundwater recharge in floodplain
soils broken.
4. Resettlement of populations and other negative socioeconomic
effects on populations and communities affected by the project.
5. Adverse effects on fisheries and other aquatic resources by
disruption of migratory routes, deterioration of habitat and
changes in water quality (e.g., sediment load), leading to
reduced productivity of riverine, coastal and marine fisheries.
1 . Adaptation by changes in agricultural practices.
2. Implementation of non-structural measures to prevent increased
flood risk, and of a flood warning system.
3. Where dams are present, partial mitigation of effect by regulation
of discharge to imitate natural flooding in a controlled way.
4. • Identification of at-risk population groups or groups who
may be adversely affected by flood control measures.
• Incorporation of their interests and protection into project planning
and cost analysis to minimize losses or provide in-kind compen-
sation for losses.
5. • Installation of fish passageways. Protection of reproductive sites
for fish.
• Incorporation of fishery management, including hatchery and re-
stocking programs.
-------
Table 8.4. Flood Protection (continued)
Potential Negative Impacts
Mitigating Measures
Direct (continued)
6. • Negative impacts of channelization measures:
• disruption of fish habitat by elimination of pools, riffles and
channel irregularities
• increased water temperature by removal of vegetation on
banks and in stream
• increased erosion and sedimentation problems
« bed and bank erosion
• downstream flooding and sedimentation
6. • Careful selection of engineering options at planning stage.
• Limitation of degree of channel modification or maintenance.
• Mitigating measures after construction phase.
• Minimize reduction of channel length and preserve some meanders.
• Limit excavation and fill.
• Limit destruction of bank and streamside vegetation.
• Replant/reseed banks.
• Excavate only one and not both banks, etc. (See Brookes 1988.)
7. Adverse effects of construction.
7. • Minimization of effects by avoiding impediments to natural
drainage, uncontrolled run-off and soil erosion, and air
pollution.
• Provision for adequate filling of borrow areas, control of land
clearing, and disposal of spoil.
• Limitation of access of vehicles to stream bank.
-------
IIP!
II
i m IN ! f! i 1 Mali i i i a. i
! I !! ill"
IB; HI; i i; :!! \ |; | ;{;:
li
il i
I! II
li i "i i MI in
'• i " >Ei*f*-!'-f .-^---P -»- —-^T«---(i ,*- .-„! [ i,,, i|l
•3) : j JH SiliW i! ^f»P t- - -f~_ -W»s* S^ ;(al ; ,:: g|
' , „, : ,^ , .
:^,i-;pf :
-:,
'
BIN
;;:I;H nil; ';;:
Potential Negative Impacts
Mitigating Measures
Direct (continued)
ihi1
Ji<,
8. Reduction of floodplain grazing, both through ecological
changes on the floodplain and intensified development (e.g.,
irrigated agriculture).
8. • Production of fodder crops and usage of byproducts of irrigated
food crops and development of alternative water sources.
• Integration of existing rangeland use (e.g., semi-nomadic herding)
with planned developments, to ensure substantial grazing and
watering possibilities in valley during dry season.
IS
u
K>
to
: 9. Reduction of recession agriculture.
'_ 10. Obstacles (levees, dikes, etc.) to wildlife passage.
9. Maintenance of natural flooding regime to extent possible in most
productive lands (and intensification of product ion) by maintaining
water courses free of flood control structures or installing struc-
tures to enable semi-controlled flooding.
10. Construction of bridges or special crossing places.
11. Loss of wildlands and wildlife habitat.
11. Identification of critical habitats and planning of flood control
measures to minimize effects; where habitats or species are
dependent on natural flooding regime, minimize disruption of flow
in that area to extent possible.
I' 31«
|s !!i«
iii
III';
I!!*:
!HIH
\ 12. Flooding problems created downstream.
12. • Protection of natural overflow areas downstream.
• Creation of overflow basins.
JIM
-------
Table 8.4. Flood Protection (continued)
Potential Negative Impacts
Mitigating Measures
Indirect
U)
k)
NJ
U)
13. Improved accessibility, development opportunities in floodplain,
and sense of security after flood control measures taken, leading
to influx of people with associated agricultural development,
deforestation, wildlifepoaching, infrastructure development, etc.
13. • Limitation of access, if possible.
• Planning for anticipated influx and implementation
of companion rural development activities.
• Introduction of non-structural control measures.
14. Increased fertilizer use on agricultural fields to compensate for
loss of fertility, leading to water pollution and dependence on
imported supplies.
14. • Optimal timing and rate of application.
• Use of nitrogen fixing cover crops.
• Use of organic instead of chemical fertilizers.
-------
IB" ;! :
:.,-.,- 1 =
f' ,: ! i ~
Tablets. Natural Forest Management
I i 1
Potential Negative Impacts
Direct: Logging
1. • Soils
. Erosion: disturbance of the forest understand soil, increasing
to water erosion.
OJ
to
aeration and root penetration; latenzation.
harvested.
Supervise logging to reduce damage and encourage rapid
regeneration.
Use low impact harvesting equipment and methods and minimize
skid trail distances.
^e log landing in well drained easily accessible areas
downslope so a straight skid road can be followed.
Restore land by grading and reseeding disturbed areas, including
gS[me"locaytin8g them away from slopes and water and keepmg
them well maintained.
No whole-tree harvest in areas of low nutrient levels, leaving all but
boles on the site.
2. • Vegetation
>••
. Consider(andperhapSresearch)variousregenerationandharvesting
methods.
B
• a.
-------
Table 8.5. Natural Forest Management (continued)
Potential Negative Impacts
Mitigating Measures
Direct: Logging
2. • Vegetation (continued)
• Weeds: opening of the forest canopy resulting invasion of weeds,
impeding natural regeneration and reforestation efforts.
• Slash: logging debris as a fire hazard and impediment to
regeneration.
• Blow downs: increased danger due to opening up patches by
logging.
U)
K>
3. • Wildlife
Fisheries: sedimentation, nutrient loading, changes in streamflow
and water temperature caused by logging causing dramatic
changes to fish populations.
Wildlife habitat: disruption of habitat, loss of tree species on
which wildlife species depend, and disturbing migratory routes of
wildlife leading to depletion of wildlife.
Presence of machines and people: disturbance of wildlife through
logging and transport activities.
Poaching: increased poaching of wildlife due to influx of people
resulting directly and indirectly from forestry activities.
• Collect information or sponsor research on plant community
dynamics, regeneration biology and silviculture of forest type.
• Consider (and perhaps research) various regeneration and harvesting
methods.
• Choose silviculture! system that will ensure regeneration and sustain-
able production and minimize damage (leave adequate number and
quality of seed trees, selective harvest, small cuts to avoid large
gaps).
• Establish preserves/parks of ecologically significant forest areas,
ensuring that area is large enough to maintain biological diversity,
ecological processes and cultural assets.
3. • Maintain inventory of and collection of research results on species
present in the area.
• Plan harvesting intensity, methods and timing based on this
information.
• In particular, ascertain presence of or migratory use by endangered
species through contact with wildlife professionals in government,
NGOs and universities.
-------
!!BIIM
I!
M II
s - «:, - •: . -:-
if
•^
Ji^ J I * ttwf '-
::«
^^3 •« Ml!
|iF =
I- I
ill ill
•1
mm • m s
H isil
! iy{ Table8.5. Natural Forest Management (continued)
i
1! I|l
I ' ii!
I' !::
1 i ii:
ii iii
ii !Hi
!! i | !
:9;i.- ~ '- -
drill
631,:
Potential Negative Impacts
Mitigating Measures
i i
1 !
Direct: Logging (continued)
4. • Air
• Dust: logging activities and timber transportation on dirt roads
generating large amounts of dust in dry season or semi-arid zones.
4. • Reduce burning.
• Avoid creating large tracts of open land.
• Limit operations when dust and fire are a problem and plan trans-
portation routes to avoid population centers.
o
-------
Table 8.5. Natural Forest Management (continued)
Potential Negative Impacts
Mitigating Measures
K)
Direct: Logging (continued)
6. • Social and Cultural
• Local economic and social customs: impacts on labor market and
labor availability for food production, a shift to more cash-based
economy, alteration of daily living patterns and political power
structure changes are common.
• Land tenure and traditional forest uses: hunting, gathering and
traditional exploitation of forest resources disrupted; limitation of
access of resources by local populations.
• Overloading of infrastructure and social services (e.g., housing,
education and health services) by in-migration of forest workers
and spontaneous settlers and social problems such as an increase
in crime, alcoholism, disease and violence.
Indirect: General
7. • Increased access: roads opening forest areas causing uncontrolled
population in-migration with subsequent problems.
6. • Incorporate local communities in planning and execution of project.
• Develop local infrastructure to handle increase hi population (i.e.,
waste disposal, school, health care and law enforcement).
• Protect significant cultural landmarks and traditional land and resource
use patterns.
• Establish clear, long-terra jurisdiction over the forest emphasizing
local involvement in decision making.
• Involve local leaders in protection to avoid illegal harvesting or
settlement.
• Monitor and control disease.
7. See "Rural Roads" section.
Indirect: Road Construction and Transport
8. • Direct impacts (e.g., increased soil erosion and sedimentation of
surface water) and indirect impacts of road construction (see "Rural
Roads" section).
8. Align route, drainage works, etc. (See No. 7.)
-------
-
i
=
-
=
•
! t»
! - 111
: s,j.
1 -Sr
:**
- m
!H! »
if W
i-: H
:S »,*;
«'
li!! W1
3 la! (i i
ii i! ! - •
( «!i ; i; 1 "
i 'MM :
; Ii 11 !
:-. ;3t;: =; i:
I II! !
H ! == = «e»
i i - •
II 1
I % ^^ • m
IN == - ^1 i
;' -= : •" =
5 ' 1 —i
i 1 -
—
_
^
=
-- -
; isj -••= ! :;M i:h K ;TaIjle8.5. Natural [Forest Management (continued) ^
-
\ m
= t-l- =-^ .
S ?! ! • ' ' '
; ::
i
! Potential Negative Impacts
1
=^
Mitigating Measures
i i i
1 I !
• •
Is|
: i
m
=-
! j |
: 1
• i
Indirect: Road Construction and Transport (continued)
9. • Degradation of existing public roads by heavy timber loads.
9. • Restrict load size.
• Use road taxes to upgrade road.
N)
00
External
10. Cattle-ranching operations that clear forests for pasture.
11. Conversion to commercial agriculture (rubber, oil palm, coffee,
rice, etc.).
10. See "Livestock and Rangeland Management" section.
-------
Table 8.6. Plantation Development/Reforestation
Potential Negative Impacts
Mitigating Measures
Direct: Site Preparation
1. Soil erosion from clearing site.
OJ
to
2. Soil compaction and puddling by machinery.
3. • Loss of organic matter and nutrients by removal of vegetation
and leaching.
• Development of hardpans and laterization.
4. Where burning is involved, air pollution from smoke.
1. • Reestablishment of forest cover as soon as possible after clearing.
• Use of fast growing, intermediate tree crops or mulching of exposed
soils.
• No clearing on steep, unstable slopes or highly erosive soils.
• Limitation of plantation size or stand sizes.
• Limitation of site preparation to dry season.
2. « Limitation of use of machinery.
• Manual site preparation.
3. • Rapid replanting.
• Cover crops.
• Mulching.
4. • Limitation of use of fire and size of burn where possible.
• Burning in wet season.
-------
I
" II I
»« ill ill I
isaSi :;Mai I
;L IT r
: '\i ,1 E I
«i .-r I
:
!
SI III IB i
II I
II
II ! I - | M - ll «: ::? I I
li I Ml! mi
M i : : it 3' HH5
IS i M 4 li N!M
IP! !'
!li|iiiMM;||||||!
13 aw li i i sji
:= ..'is a:' , :!«!
:*;-:,:-:ǥ ȣ' ^ m\
!! !! MM!
! s;
"•••"* -a * •>
:!;:!
, Ifcl! i I =1 ,i
-• ia,i, i !i!ii
,1 -lie; aim i I "=tli
^ii, anil! i , |! i ili! i li ("ill
Table 8.6. Plantation Development/Reforestation (continued)
i-;^ Slt-ii
!;^ ^ei!!
, , ,fc^ .«•*,,, n'"1!
iliW ilpil!
iiii i
rin 11
Potential Negative Impacts
Mitigating Measures
III V
1 =
««t *
!« *;
j,:
i-
Direct: Plantation Management and Harvesting
5. Soil erosion from harvesting.
jjj I
saii
ill!
?-tSs ^
j^iiiw
;j;ai o
i!M3!
i;! Mi I
!;i!NS
s
5. • Replanting as soon as possible after cut.
• Avoidance of clear cutting; practice of "small coupe logging"
(characterized by checkerboard pattern of alternating small cuts with
unlogged areas).
• Limitation of harvesting to dry season or season of low rainfall.
• Planning of felling to minimize log skidding and avoidance of
skidding logs parallel to slope.
• Stabilize skid trails as soon as possible after use.
• Use of animals instead of skidders for extraction.
I
lir
111! I!
S!
-t i!:i t;
f:
6. Loss of nutrients from the system by thinning and clear cutting and by
whole-tree harvest.
7. Use of fertilizer, pesticides and herbicides having negative impacts on-
site and on quality of local water bodies.
6. • Logging debris left on ground after harvesting and removal of boles
only (no whole-tree harvesting).
• Planting of cover crops between rotations; addition of fertilizer to -
compensate for nutrients loss.
7. • Limitation of potential of pest and disease infestations by choice of
resistant species. t
Mil
ill !BI
ill i"! j
i;j 'iH
' :FB
ili liM
Choice of chemicals with least potential negative impacts. |
^
Controlled use of chemicals.
-------
Table 8.6. Plantation Development/Reforestation (continued)
Potential Negative Impacts
Mitigating Measures
Direct: Plantation Management and Harvesting (continued)
8. Chemical and biological changes in the soil as litter becomes dominated 8. Limitation of size of stands and interspersal with stands of native
by one or a few species and decomposition dynamics are altered. vegetation.
K)
OJ
9. • Direct damage in harvesting operations by dragging and skidding
logs causing compaction.
• Localized soil erosion and unequal distribution of debris and organic
matter over the site.
10. In semi-arid zones depletion of soil moisture and lowering of water
table in plantation area.
9. • Use of manual methods or animal power for clearing forest instead
. of mechanical means.
• In.short rotation plantations plan use of same tracks and loading
areas in harvesting operations to protect as much of site as possible.
10. • Choice of low water demanding species.
• Water catchment and conservation techniques to minimize runoff and
evaporation losses and maximize infiltration.
11. Build up of organic matter under plantations posing a fire hazard.
11. Periodic clearing or burning to keep volume low.
12. Increased sedimentation of streams.
12. • Buffer zones of undisturbed forest 20-40 m wide along streams.
• Avoidance of earthfill dams across streams as crossings.
• Sediment traps in streams.
• Avoidance of skidding trees in stream.
-------
JM
IPS ' ! I«I
liir
11N
&: ;
»! |
i : "i,£ til !"
' "SB i 3(111 I I j
I , i is' : » -. L. - -L-
' ts's • ty,. : : , , -.s ,,
;»«, i *>„; ? [ , - S*U
^ TI. r ^r = n -
1
I
III! « : i
11 11 |
fisf!"
;
IH"*
•li
!Hlli!kB,:Mi . gi!
hi ; i*-:
i;
-^
;«
i«
*•-•-*=
»
in ii i
isr
I - -i IP1
-
J a =s :-=i
I.
*?• I J i! 111!
i
1
•
Table 8.6. Plantation De?elopmentyReforestation (continued) : H i
:«! Ml !! J I H I
Potential Negative Impacts
Mitigating Measures
Direct: Plantation Management and Harvesting (continued)
IT'
>•:
wit
11^
tt 5K IIiTIi. -
!
I
i [
-J
-
i ;,! "•
Increased organic matter entering surface waters in form of leaf litter
and logging debris or from logs transported on river leading to
decrease in water quality and perhaps eutrophication, and navigational
hazards.
Soil erosion from logging roads.
; Displacement of Other Ecosystems
E ?^ IS. Loss of habitat and decreased biological diversity by replacement of
natural forest by plantations with limited number of species and
; "€ ~s increased uniformity of forest structure.
! HfSH
i
|
i
13. • Buffer zones along streams.
• Spaced transport of logs in river over time. ^
14. • Siting of roads on ridge tops or valley bottoms and avoidance of :
steep grades on hillsides. ;;
• Engineering to ensure proper drainage or provision of drainage i;
measures. ;,
• Stabilization of road cuts with mulch, wood chips, etc.
!j
• Minimized use of borrow pits or stabilization after use. I;
!l
• Proper road maintenance. Jj^
• Use of rivers for log transport (see also "Rural Roads" section).
IS. • Protection of natural forest area with particularly high or unique
biological diversity.
• Limitation of plantation establishment to degraded sites or sites of
low diversity.
-------
Table 8.6. Plantation Development/Reforestation (continued)
Potential Negative Impacts
Mitigating Measures
Displacement of Other Ecosystems (continued)
o
u>
U)
16. Increased potential for massive loss by pests or pathogens (through
simplification of natural ecosystem, provision of abundant food for
pest, increased pest habitat, absence of natural controls (e.g., in the
case of introduced exotic tree species).
17. Loss of forest products from native species.
• Increase in number of species planted and avoidance of mono-
cultures over large area.
• Restriction of size of individual stands and mixing of stands of
various age classes.
• Conservation of islands of untouched forest or natural
vegetation.
• Separation of stands by belts of native vegetation and use of native
species as plantation species.
16. • Use of native species.
• Choice of species and provenances with pest or disease resistance.
• Rotation length to minimize susceptibility (e.g., cutting before trees
are overmature).
• Thinning and other stand improvement measures to remove dead
and diseased material, and wood residues which act as centers
for infection.
• Direct pest or disease control.
17. Careful evaluation of local use of forest products to accommodate
continued use and determine feasibility of developing local industries
based on these goods.
-------
!? i I I
!! ! II
-I: i II
m; i
i'5S =
-.---* „-= •
i I^=E^E !• ! IE? i « * • fcfc P i i i i :JFW;L=F^«II -- s' = M f
| i^5 ilJf! a s (I-. -. - t t^; ; I I I -**^- - Etf ;l- I i 1
^ " - " ' : -^ _ - - ^ " - - - = • - *5*
as1 -- -.-. "-:«; ; :!'v;;' ; :J-%,: ; : :: !
!!! IN
'. i f :;! Ml
I "», • -_•». I : - -
1 - - --- , ^ = s ^5 f= .- -_ ,
PI- ='^s = _ = = - = ,2s - M - 5
Si: li ,,: :S;": •" »'
---i" iii I— r ! :f_
•1! it;lii
Table 8.6. Plantation Development/Reforestation (continued)
Potential Negative Impacts
Mitigating Measures
OJ
Displacement of Other Ecosystems (continued)
18. Spread of plantation species outside of plantation becoming a nuisance,
competing with' native species and becoming weeds in agricultural
fields.
Socioeconomic Impacts
19. Social impacts from influx of people from outside, both wage earners
and spontaneous setters, induced by road building into remote areas
(direct and indirect impacts).
20. Problems related to land tenure and land and resource use rights
leading to unequitable sharing of costs and benefits of the project.
18. Species choice to avoid ones that will grow out of control from
desired site.
19. See the following sections: "New Land Settlement"; "Indigenous;
Peoples"; and "Induced Development." i
20. • Genuine integration of local communities and peoples in project:
planning and implementation.
• Pre-project socioeconomic surveys and assessments and land and
resource use studies.
• Provision of alternatives which fairly compensate local people who
incur losses.
-------
Table 8.7. Irrigation and Drainage
Potential Negative Impacts
Mitigating Measures
Direct
1. Soil erosion (furrow, surface).
1. • Proper design and layout of furrows or field avoiding too steep a
gradient.
• Land leveling.
• Design of terraces on hillside minimizing surface erosion hazard.
OJ 2. Soil erosion (with sprinkler irrigation on hilly area).
i-o
2. Design of sprinkler system minimizing erosion hazard assuring infil-
tration rate exceeds application rate of the sprinklers.
3. Waterlogging of soils.
3. • Regulation of water application to avoid overwatering (including
controlled turn-out to allow cutting off water supply to irrigation
ditches).
• Installation and maintenance of adequate drainage system.
• Use of lined canals or pipes to prevent seepage.
• Use of sprinkler or drip irrigation.
4. Salinization of soils.
4. • Measures to avoid waterlogging:
• leaching of salts by flushing soils periodically
• cultivation of crops with salinity tolerance
-------
:,-_»-.. < i B« i !!i
I
mi:; H :
': • ilii " ' ''''•'• ::= ' ''
it
HI
iiiii!
11 «
:M Hi: I:
--:--- -_-'--! - -- - i--i.3 >:..-
""-: I !i! =::- ;
in rill
-:; - -i ,i: • * i ? "^ ,;in HP -i , ] =i
^fe^i -^ =i i '-"-- '- t i _ S3 i? «L= _ i ^
! r * f^? s i? : =' ' ^ ft i fc, S=W i -: -"=."""
ig jj | '] :
a = ?..J* = =L
• 1
s i
!
i nil!
! lit!
I
1 P! H f-sTf^-—*
-' ^Igty-lgltv
"
III
r. Irrigation and
:»*! if
Potential Negative Impacts
-5-= =• - i- : = =•_- -=*--- =—
ii?!il
iEiu; 3 h -"-v
,
in
! Direct (continued)
j S. Scouring of canals.
; 6. Clogging of canals by sediments.
UJ
N)
U>
ON
i
.:".
*i» JillUt
Ml ll'll
in Ii • IN I
: -£ :, i ill :
,;' (i L :
i if 'i ;::
I'll
:-rii MI
a^l i;-2 == Sit
,
IBI i'l
Mitigating Measures
7. Leaching of nutrients from soils.
8. Algal blooms and weed proliferation.
9. Clogging of canals by weeds.
10. Deterioration of river water quality below irrigation project and
contamination of local ground water (higher salinity, nutrients,
agrochemicals) affecting fisheries and downstream users.
llllll
S. Design of canal system to minimize risk and use of lined canals.
6. • Measures to minimize erosion on fields. '^
• Design and management of canals to minimize sedimentation. ;
• Provision of access to canals for removal of weeds and sediments.
7. • Avoidance of overwatering. ^
.: P
• Replacement of nutrients by fertilizers or crop rotations.
8. Reduction of input to and release of nutrients (nitrogen and!
phosphorous) from fields. !
9. • Design and management of canals to minimize weed growth. |
i
• Provision of access to canals for treatment or removal of weeds, j
10. • Improved water management; improved agricultural practices and!
control of inputs (particularly biocides and chemical fertilizers). *
r
• Imposition of water quality criteria. <
¥*; in
jii
m
w;;,:«
s- : !IB
i
•-*•> i
!f<.!
A^t 1:1
!"
iS-f iii
!('<'
w ;i
:y;!ii
jilU
"*
SIEI
f#-- __
i**; na
/Mt«*!
1«MP !!•
i|«i 1
:»iii :|
ft Si""
i !(
-------
Table 8.7. Irrigation and Drainage (continued)
Potential Negative Impacts
Mitigating Measures
Direct (continued)
11. Sea water intrusion into downstream freshwater systems.
12. Reduction of downstream flows affecting flood plain use, flood plain
ecology, riverine and estuarine fisheries, users of water, dilution of
pollutants.
13. Encroachment on swamps and other ecologically sensitive areas.
14. Alteration or destruction of wildlife habitat or impediment to
movement of wildlife.
11. • Reduction of takeoff to maintain adequate downstream flow.
• Recharge of coastal aquifers through injection wells.
12. • Relocation or redesign of project.
• Regulation of takeoff to mitigate effects.
• Compensatory measures where possible.
13. Siting of projects to avoid or minimize encroachment on critical areas.
14. • Siting of project to minimize loss or avoid encroachment on most
sensitive or critical areas.
• Establishment of compensatory parks or reserved areas.
• Animal rescue and relocation.
• Provision of corridors for movement.
IS. Impediment to movement of livestock and humans.
15. Provision of passageways.
-------
(i
M
I c
"
i!«!« i! !! I !!!(!!
•111! Nip!
1 »= 5 '
, •
J •« is i:
*
Table 8.7. Irrigation and Drainage (continued)
a „
, i m ft ,,
i si
Potential Negative Impacts
Mitigating Measures
Direct (continued)
t 3 16. Threat to historic, cultural or aesthetic features.
16. • Siting of project to prevent loss.
• Salvage or protection of cultural sites.
; t
B »
t _
w 17. Alteration or loss of flood plain vegetation and disturbance of coastal
;to 11 \ i ecosystems (e.g., mangroves).
'00
17. • Siting of project to less vulnerable area.
• Limitation and regulation of water take-off to minimize problems
to extent possible.
• » a
i: IS I
j j
1 i
i i
i *
i)
(I
i ii
18. Dislocation of populations and communities.
, i it
MtS
, ! ;:B
I l'£
). Introduction or increase in incidence of water-borne or water-related
disease (schistosomiasis, malaria, onchocerciasis, etc.).
! 1«
fill
18. • Siting of project to minimize effect.
• Resettlement scheme ensuring at least equal standard of living.
19. • Prevention measures:
• use of lined canals or pipes to discourage vectors
• avoidance of stagnant or slowly moving water
• use of straight or slightly curving canals
• installation of gates at canal ends to allow complete flushing
• filling or draining of borrow pits along canals and roads
• disease prophylaxis
• disease treatment
-------
Table 8.7. Irrigation and Drainage (continued)
Potential Negative Impacts
Mitigating Measures
Direct (continued)
20. Disease and health problems from use of wastewater in irrigation.
20. • Wastewater treatment (e.g., settling ponds) prior to use.
• Establishment and enforcement standards for wastewater use.
OJ
i-o
21. Conflicts over water supply and inequalities in water distribution
throughout service area.
22. Overpumping of groundwater.
Indirect
23. Increased pollution and health hazards from downstream industrial and
municipal pollutants caused by decreased flow (decreased dilution) of
river water.
21. Means to ensure equitable distribution among users and monitor to
assure adherence.
22. Limitation of withdrawal so that it does not exceed "safe yield"
(recharge rate).
23. • Control of waste sources downstream.
• Reduction of water take-off.
External
24. Water quality deteriorated or made unusable by upstream land use and
pollutants discharge.
24. • Control of land use in watershed areas.
• Control of pollution sources.
• Water treatment prior to use.
-------
"I
i i
t B i i j
! K i i :
I i
!!
Table 8,8. Liyeslock and Rangdand Management -
Potential Negative Impacts
Mitigating Measures
i i
-Direct
1. Degradation of vegetation resources due to overgrazing.
OJ
to
-k
1. • Limitation of animal numbers.
• Control of length of grazing time on particular areas.
• Mixing of livestock species to maximize use of vegetation resource.
• Reseeding and fodder production.
• Cut-and-carry.
• Strategic placement of water points and salt.
il
I't
2. • Increased soil erosion due to clearing of vegetation and trampling.
m • Increased saltation of surface waters.
i
• 3. • Deterioration of soil fertility and physical characteristics through:
- • removal of vegetation
= • increased erosion
- • soil compaction
4. Increased rapid runoff due to vegetation clearing and soil compaction
(decreased infiltration capacity).
; »
2. • Restriction of livestock access to unstable areas (e.g., stoop slopes).* «»
• Soil erosion control measures (e.g., reforestation, reseeding of j
grasses, land preparation, terracing). |
3. Same as 1 and 2. ;
4. • Water conservation measures and water spreading.
• Same as 1 and 2.
-------
Table 8.8. Livestock and Rangeland Management (continued)
Potential Negative Impacts
Mitigating Measures
Direct (continued)
5. • Degradation of vegetation and soil around water poults.
• Overlapping of groundwater.
• Lowering of watertable and degradation of vegetation locally by
drilling and use of boreholes.
OJ
4^-
5. • Development of many small-capacity water sources.
• Strategic placement of water points.
• Control of use of water points (animal numbers and time of year).
• Closure of permanent water sources when temporary pools and
streams are available.
• Limitation of well capacity by choice of technologies (e.g.,
handpumps or buckets instead of motor pumps).
6. • Displacement or reduction of wildlife populations by reduction of
habitat.
• Disruption of migratory routes.
• ' Competition for food and water resources.
• Introduction of diseases.
• Impacts of burning.
• Increased poaching and killing of wildlife considered as pests or
predators to livestock.
6. • Planning and implementation of range management strategies
(choice of species, livestock numbers, grazing areas) that minimize
negative impacts on wildlife.
• Establishment of compensatory wildlife refugees.
• Investigation of management of wildlife ranching which will help
protect wildlife resources.
-------
!lji • j
sift f2 !a
111 i!;?
m ;' i,«
;;jj ) ; !»
IN i H !I II!
ill
»,
ill
::i i!
Table 8.8. Lirestock and Rangeland Manflgcmmt (continued)
f^ -- =- - -- ? i i
j!
I iffl
Potential Negative Impacts
Mitigating Measures
Direct (continued)
7. Pollution environmental disruption and health hazards from disease and
pest control measures.
u>
«h
7. • Choice of chemical that is species-specific, short residence time
(active period), and has low impact on other biologic resources.
• Protective measures for field workers.
• Spraying methods and timing to minimize potential of water1
pollution. ;
• Selection of disease-resistant livestock breed.
= 8. Reduction of genetic variability due to selective breeding.
9. Negative effects of uncontrolled burning for brush control on soil and
vegetation (deterioration of soil fertility and soil structure, altered
wildlife habitat, destruction of vegetation).
i
10. Conversion of moist tropical lowland forests for livestock production
resulting in long-term environmental degradation and unsustainable
production.
8. Conservation of genetic diversity in-site (protection of wild relatives in;
natural habitat, maintaining variability within populations by breeding);
and ex-situ (e.g., preservation of genetic material in "banks"). ;
9. Implementation of well-planned and controlled burning programs.
10. Avoidance of clearing such forests for livestock production.
I li
-------
Table 8.9. Rural Roads
Potential Negative Impacts
Mitigating Measures
Direct: During Construction
1. Erosion from fresh road cuts and fills and temporary sedimentation of
natural drainage ways.
1. • Limitation of earth moving to dry periods.
• Protection of most susceptible soil surfaces with mulch.
• Protection of drainage channels with berms, straw or fabric barriers.
• Installation of sedimentation basins, seeding or planting of erodible
surfaces as soon as possible.
OJ
to 2. Ground and water contamination by oil, grease, and fuel in equipment
Js, yards.
2. • Collection and recycling of lubricants.
• Precautions to avoid accidental spills.
3. Creation of stagnant water bodies in borrow pits, quarries, etc. suited
to mosquito breeding and other disease vectors.
4. Environmental and social disruption by construction camps.
3. Assessment of vector ecology in work areas and employment of
measures (e.g., improved landscaping, filling or drainage) to avoid
creating habitats.
4. Careful siting, construction and management of construction camps.
Direct: Permanent
5. Destruction of buildings, vegetation and soil in the right of-way,
borrow pit sites, waste dumps, and equipment yards.
5. • Alternative alignments.
• Harvest and utilization of public domain forest resources prior to
construction.
-------
8! K H 111
!!iei!l
I
5 IS
US!!
j
t a tfsi
111 Bill
K S
|i« !jp
6 ' P iiij
\r~~t
-a
ill
i« P|
_ 111
it i-
t--;?_. « =--:-,. .j
lip ii
jt
^*.r^^ ;=,J JB
»!!• !•• ! H
s:«!| til
NH M|i
i •:; 1 pi
' I BM I i
iilili
ill!
i,«•
in
|i »!!
Table 8.9. Rural Roads (continued)
: i
Potential Negative Impacts
Mitigating Measures
:*S Direct: Permanent (continued)
Compensation given to private landowners.
II! Pi!!
11 III
a
a
H
=.
vs ;: 35*
Pi r I! I-*
.-.•!
IS !
T: »
;i f
•,' 6. Interruption of subsoil and overland drainage patterns (in areas of cuts
^ *s and fills).
^ 7. Landslides, slumps, slips and other mass movements in road cuts.
: to r
-s m
H
»i 6 W-iJR
l! 1 11 'IS
• I
£: ! (i |-r
J 8. Erosion of lands below the roadbed receiving concentrated outflow
I carried by covered or open drains.
I S
=*i =^»
da
Bi ft I, JjB
si i |iji
Si i h •««<
« , ff JE 3
1
9. Increased suspended sediment in streams affected by road cut erosion,
* decline in water quality and increased sedimentation downstream.
I i
• Restoration of sites to original condition to extent possible through
reclamation measures. ^
£
6. Installation of adequate drainage works. ^
7. • Route alignment to avoid inherently unstable areas. ?
• Design of drainage works to minimize changes in surface flows and
adequate to local conditions, according to prior surveys. ^
• Stabilization of road cuts with structures (concrete walls, dry wall
masonry, gabions, etc.). ^.
It
8. • Increase in number of dram outlets. j|
• Drain outlets placed so as to avoid cascade effect. a
¥
SB
• Lining of receiving surface with stones, concrete. S
9. • Establishment of vegetative cover on credible surfaces as soon as
possible. #
"v
S-
• Establishment of retention ponds to reduce sediment load before
water enters stream. ^
t>
B
-------
Table 8.9. Rural Roads (continued)
Potential Negative Impacts
Mitigating Measures
Direct: Permanent (continued)
10. Marred landscape (scars from road cuts, induced landslides and
slumps, etc.).
10. • Tourist site access roads planned with regard for visual aesthetics.
• Grade limitations to avoid cutting and filling where scenery would
be spoiled.
• Maintenance and/or restoration of roadside vegetation.
k> 11. Health hazards and interference of plant growth adjacent to road by
^ dust raised and blown by vehicles.
12. Contamination of ground and surface waters by herbicides for
vegetation control and chemicals (e.g., calcium chloride) for dust
control.
11. Dust control by application of water or chemicals.
12. • Reduction of use.
• Alternative (non-chemical) methods of control.
13. Accident risks associated with vehicular traffic and transport, that may
result in spills of toxic materials (see "Hazardous Materials
Management" section), injuries or loss of life (see "Public Health and
Safety" section).
14. Creation of a new pathway for disease vectors affecting humans and
animals.
15. Disruption/destruction of wildlife through interruption of migratory
routes, disturbance of wildlife habitats, and noise related problems.
13. • Regulation of transport of toxic materials to minimize danger/
• Prohibition of toxic waste transport through ecologically
sensitive area.
14. Establishment of plant and animal sanitation service and
related checkpoints.
15. Siting to minimize impacts.
-------
ill ; am I •!!! !•
II 1
|!l jlfjj liyip i!
12:
• '• 1MB I
......
ml c tn
i! I
':
II
ill
; i Ji j • " i:"!i' ; i»aj Jt,!
Jii:^ fci ,;,\;sii JU is jjafeajj1
"= -' --« - : t1 E- «H ^ - L :°
I ! III!
I B i I • i i ,J! Hr/IAuui,!
= ll'lli
US
ir
i|« HIMii
II
Mil •! i
Will!!
i!j
!!i I! I III! •III!
— t'- • ISI:
1
!• BI!!!
;;: ?j::a I'SE!
II! 1(1 j J j|l||!
:( i SiE ; pj ^t n|j
H1 a-*:
Potential Negative Impacts
Mitigating Measures
Indirect
: 16. Unplanned or illegal timber cutting.
= 17. Unplanned or illegal land clearing.
18. Long-term or semi-permanent destruction of soils in cleared areas not
suited for agriculture.
16. See "Natural Forest Management" section.
17. See "New Land Settlement" section.
18. See 17 above.
O\
119. Planned development and illegal invasion of homelands of indigenous 19. See "Indigenous Peoples" section.
peoples by squatters and poachers causing serious social and economic
disruption.
20. Destruction or damage of terrestrial wildlife habitats, biological
resources or ecosystems that should be preserved by induced
: development.
21. Damaging alteration of wetland ecosystems traversed by causeways.
* 22. Excessive and/or destructive development of coastal areas or other use
j of coral for cement and landfill, destroying parts of reef uniquely
endowed recreational environments made accessible by roads.
20. See "Biological Diversity" and "Wildlands" sections.
21. See "Wetlands" section.
22. See "Tourism Development" section.
Ill Hi
Hi
iii i
iR mm !
I %? HI fl j J I
-------
Table 9.1. Analytical Framework for Urban Environmental Problems
Manifestations
Impacts
Causes
Cures
Deteriorated living environment
and services
OJ
to
Ambient air pollution
Health impacts
- infectious and parasitic
diseases
- malnutrition
- accidents
- stress, drugs, violence
- acute and chronic toxicity
- genetic effects
- cancer
Lost urban productivity
Degradation of the natural
environment
- resource loss
- amenity loss
Localized primarily in large cities Urbanization/industrialization
Substandard housing
Lack of water and sanitation
Disease-carrying insects and rodents
Indoor air pollution
Excreta laden water/soils
Trash dumping
Noise/stress
Traffic congestion
Natural disasters
Indoor air pollution
- health problems
- lost aesthetic, cultural,
recreational values
- property damage (including
historical monuments
At present more of metropolitan
area problem than regional/
global problem
Chronic obstructive lung disease
Fuel/energy pricing and urban
energy demand
Vehicle ownership
Space heating
Use of highly polluting fuels:
- leaded gases
- high-sulphur lignite
Bioiuel use for domestic cooking
and heating
Appropriate housing and land
development regulations
Housing finance
Provision of affordable infra-
structure and plots
Provision of affordable water
sanitation, solid waste
services at cost
Targeted subsidies
Improved efficiency and
effectiveness of infra-
structure and service
provision
Pollution control
Community participation
Pricing of industrial and
energy inputs
Regulations and standards
Emission charges
Monitoring and enforcement
Energy conservation
Technological interventions
- scrubbers, baghouse filters
- vehicleemissionscontrol
- fuel substitution
Pricing of commercial fuel
and energy
-------
1 I
1 !•
I II
! i
Table 9.1. Analytical Framework for Urban Environmental Problems (continued)
Manifestations
Impacts
Causes
Cures
Indoor air pollution (continued)
4
Acute respiratory infections
Low birth weight and associated problems
Cancer
Passive smoking
Cottage industry exposure
Targeted fuel subsidies
Improved housing and ventilation
Public awareness
~ Solid waste pollution
OOg
S Fecal contamination
I
J Hazardous waste pollution
Health hazards
Amenity impacts
Blocked drainage and flooding
Water pollution (leachates)
Air pollution (heavy metals/toxic
organic compounds from incinerators
and uncontrolled burning)
Diarrhea! diseases
Parasitosis
Malnutrition
High infant mortality
Acutely affects groundwater, but
often multimedia impacts
Damage at low concentrations
- Health damages (e.g., acute and
chronic toxicity)
Inefficient management
(collection and disposal)
Impacts not recognized or
external to community
Lack of basic sanitation
services
Excreta laden water/soils
Proliferation of garbage/
insects
Insufficient regulations/
management
Pricing of inputs into
into industries pro-
ducing waste
Improved collection
- expanded coverage (e.g., to low-
income area via community
based approaches)
- efficient operations (e.g., create
contestable markets to encourage
private sector entry)
- financial strengthening (budgeting,
accounting, cost recovery)
Disposal technology and management
Resource recovery/recycling
Provision of affordable sanitation
options at cost
Community-based approaches
Hygiene education _j
Regulations, standards and changes
Monitoring and enforcement capacity
Licensing
Waste minization
- process modification
-------
Table 9.1. Analytical Framework for Urban Environmental Problems (continued)
Manifestations
Impacts
Causes
Cures
Hazardous waste pollution (continued)
Fresh water resource depletion
(surface and ground water)
to
Fresh water resource quality
degradation (surface and
ground water)
- Foodchain accumulation
"Timebombs" (hidden dumps that
build up over time)
Sources running out
Increasing marginal costs
Land subsidence
Poor quality surface and
ground water
Health impacts
Increasing marginal cost of:
- potable supply
- industrial supply
- individual treatment
Waterlogging and salinization
Saline intrusion
Impacts removed in space
and time
Pricing policies
Cultural (perception of
free good)
Overpumping of groundwater
Irrigation policies and
practices (inefficiency)
Leakages from water
Municipal and industrial
waste disposal practices
- Sewerage (water pricing,
poor O & M)
- Industrial wastes (input
pricing, poor regula-
lations enforcement)
Urban runoff
Irrigation policies and
practices
Overpumping of groundwater
Impacts not recognized or
external to the community
- resource recovery/recycling
Treatment and disposal technology
and management
Improved pricing
Integrated watershed management
Improved technologies (e.g.,
wastewater reuse)
Regulation of groundwater
extraction
Improved O & M
Pricing Policies
Regulations, standards, charges
Monitoring and enforcement
Solid and hazardous waste management
Treatment technology and operations
Integrated watershed management
Regulation of groundwater extraction
Public education
-------
!ll
IM.M
I
I iSt ii
j
J •:?:!
ll II
IIIIII I
11=s - fc ^
111 'T
ill! : nil,
i ill i Hi
: in -- i- -\
Manifestations
nil I
3 ! Lake, coastal and marine
! water pollution (including
!t ': fisheries depletion)
for Urban Ennrornnmtal Problems (continued)
Impacts
Causes
Cures
Mainly occurs locally:
- closed beaches and lost
toursim revenues
- lost aesthetics
- health consequences
- eutrophication
- flsh and shellfish contamination
Reduced employment opportunities
Municipal and industrial waste
disposal practices
(see above)
Agricultural runoff (plus re-
lated policies)
Detergents
Shipping/oil
Litter/plastics
Water pollution regulations
(municipal and industrial)
Solid waste management
Improved technologies (e.g.,
outfall design)
Shipping facilities and regulations
Special areas designation (e.g.,
marine sanctuary)
Coastal zone management
- i
s «
I I
- •
ii
i :
( * Degradation of tend and ecosystems
a
I!?*.
« ; fl^
B i if • i i \t' (
Ml;
~ Occupation of high-risk land
: (generally squatter and
i low-income groups)
- low-lying land
i - flood plains
j - steep zones
Loss of wetlands/wildlands (rich
(genetic diversity, migratory birds,
hydrological aspects)
Coastal zone degradation
Loss of recreational areas (e.g.,
beach fronts)
Deforestation (urban firewood/
charcoal demand)
Increased erosion
Flooding
Landslides, mudslides
Erosion
Health risks, accidents
Property damage and building collapse
Shadow value of land much
higher than prices
Absence of land taxation
and enforcement
Uncontrolled urban growth
- absence of planning control
- lack of legal alternative
to squatter developments
Water pollution
Solid waste disposal practices
Occupation of steep zones
Land tenure systems
Failed land markets
Lack of developed lands
Land regulations/enforcement
Appropriate incentives (prices
and taxes)
Affordable planning regulations;
enforcement
Pollution control regulation
Special areas designation (e.g.,
nature preserves, parks, seashores)
NGO-type activity in support of
environmental initiative
Appropriate incentives (prices,
taxes, tenure, access to housing
finance)
Less regulation of land markets
Provision of affordable infrastructure
Targeted subsidies
Community participation programs
o\
o\
-------
Table 9.1. Analytical Framework for Urban Environmental Problems (continued)
Manifestations
Impacts
Causes
Cures
Degradation of cultural property
- historical monuments
- living monuments
Loss of cultural heritage
Loss of tourism revenue
Local value less than
international value
Air pollution
Solid waste management •
practices
Lack of enforcement
Dead monuments:
- pollution control
- preservation/enforcement
Living monuments:
- historical districts
- tax incentives
- public education
u>
-------
> I!' II
1 IB..
IP
« jaisi! ijii =»i
a '"' .-• ;«
!m !!- I.I
!!
.mull " ' 'I .Bii "Sl: I
iSM
iEju
,
-------
Table 9.2. Roads and Highways (continued)
Potential Negative Impacts
Mitigating Measures
Direct (continued)
7. Landslides, slumps, slips and other mass movements in road cuts.
OJ
k>
OJ
8. Erosion of lands below the road bed receiving concentrated outflow
from covered or open drains.
7. • Provide drainage works as needed to reduce risk, according to prior
surveys.
• Align route to avoid inherently unstable areas.
• Stabilize road cuts with structures (concrete walls, dry wall
masonry, gabions, etc.).
8. • Increase number of drain outlets.
• Place drain outlets so as to avoid cascade effect.
• Line receiving surface with stones, concrete.
9. Roadside litter.
9. • Provide for disposal facilities.
• Encourage anti-littering laws and regulations.
10. Hazardous driving conditions where construction interferes with pre-
existing roads.
11. Alteration of overland drainage and subsoil drainage (where road cuts
intercept perched water tables, springs, etc.).
12. Destruction of vegetation and wildlife in the right-of-way occupied by
the highway.
10. Provide in design for proper markers on roads, including lights.
11. Installation of adequate drainage works.
12. Realignment where possible to detour exceptional areas, identified by
prior surveys.
-------
1 ri i
1
-_ Table 9.2. Roads and Highways (continued) ~
HI
Potential Negative Impacts
Mitigating Measures
I Direct (continued)
j
13. Destruction or damage of terrestrial wildlife habitats, biological
' resources or ecosystems that should be preserved.
13. Plan national transportation route alignment according to location of
fragile, unique, etc., areas.
14. Alteration of hydrological regimes of wetlands by causeways, with
harmful effects on these ecosystems.
o
14. • Realignment to avoid wetlands.
• Installation of culverts, bridges, etc., as needed and according to ;
criteria from prior hydrobiological surveys.
• See "Wetlands" section.
15. • Interruption of migratory routes for wildlife and livestock.
• Increased collisions with animals.
15. • Realign to avoid imnportant migratory routes.
• Provide undergrade crossings.
16. Poor sanitation and solid waste disposal in construction camps and
work sites.
17. Possible transmission of communicable diseases from workers to local
populations and vice versa.
18. Creation of temporary breeding habitats for mosquito vectors of
disease, e.g., sunny, stagnant pools of water.
19. Creation of a transmission corridor for diseases, pests, weeds and other
undesirable organisms.
16. Provide adequately located and maintained latrines.
17. Periodic health examinations of workers with treatment when needed.
18. Assess vector ecology in work areas and take steps where possible to ;
avoid creating habitats. j
19. Set up plant and animal sanitation service and related checkpoints.
-------
Table 9.2. Roads and Highways (continued)
Potential Negative Impacts
Mitigating Measures
Direct (continued)
20. Poaching by construction workers.
21. • Dislocation and compulsory resettlement of people living on the
right-of-way.
• Near cities and in rich farming regions, many people can be
affected.
u> 22. Obstruction of routes from homes to farms, etc., increasing travel
^ time.
23. Impairment of non-motored transportation in the highway corridor due
to reduced or impeded rights-of-way.
24. Accident risks associated with vehicular traffic and transport, that may
result in spills of toxic materials injuries or loss of life.
Indirect
25. Induced development: roadside commercial, industrial, residential, and
"urban sprawl."
20. Prohibit poaching under terms of employment.
21. • See "Involuntary Resettlement" section.
• Locally unprecedented mechanisms and procedures may be required
to arrive at equitable and adequate compensation, and a companion
effort to develop the capacity may be required.
22. Provide appropriately designed and located crossings.
23. Include slow traffic lanes and/or paved shoulders and safe crossings.
24. • Design and implement safety measures and an emergency plan to
contain damages from accidental spills.
• Designate special routes for hazardous materials transport.
• See "Industrial Hazard Management" and "Public Health and
Safety" sections.
25. • Involve land use planning agencies at all levels in project design
and EA, and plan for controlled development.
-------
: ;s
« "I
III
Ii!
i t
, ; : i; i, in lisi i
III! II !! I! III! ill!
Hi It If
i i; ^, Wi: i«r
!«^'
!
:
- * ^ 11
»; i
Si:
i i
i i
!! mm «
; .I
j ^y *
in ii i lr i IIB i
; - - - == =p .— _-=: 5 ^ ^^^^f ,
!! Ml!
i t? *r: i ? ^ siv1 • S > I:
! ! ~r1: Br f. i TV.Lf_iA*<»l Tt~-J-
!
Table 9.2. Roads and Highways
!!!«
i H i*
"IB
(continued) -
- _-
;
Potential Negative Impacts
Mitigating Measures
'! » (continued)
f ^
' •< 26. Increased motorized transportation (with possible increased dependency
•.'• l*i on imported fuels).
Ii M!
27. Impairment of non-motorized transportation economy due to changes
^ iH! in land use and/or increased availability of motorized alternatives.
"!«
-
; ^| 28. Unplanned or illegal timber cutting.
129. Unplanned or illegal land clearing.
• '<"; « as
1 Hi
; i iii p 30. Illegal invasion by squatters and poachers of homelands of indigenous
1 [ill K peoples.
26. Include project components to encourage use of non-motorized
transportation.
27. Include project components to stimulate local production and use of
non-motorized modes of transportation.
28. See "Rural Roads" section.
29. See "Rural Roads" section.
30. See "Indigenous Peoples" and "Induced Development" sections in
Chapter 3.
w
; i»:' m
il Mi
ia H
-1*:. 1 11
i ilii
-------
Table 9.3. Inland Navigation
Potential Negative Impacts
Mitigating Measures
Direct: Dredging Process and Disposal
1. Project location (e.g., enhancement or development of a waterway) may
affect sensitive habitats and/or valuable fisheries resources.
2. Removal and disturbance of flora and fauna at the dredging site.
3. Interference of stationary dredging equipment with other maritime
traffic.
4. Possible disturbance or damage to stationary installations such as
underwater cables, pipelines, and outfalls.
5. Objectionable noise to nearby residents, especially at night.
6. Increased short-term turbidity at dredging site.
7. Alterations of bottom surface which may be unfavorable to the success
of indigenous benthic flora and fauna.
1. Perform screening analysis of site environs and ecology, and select an
area that is not adjacent to sensitive habitat and would not displace
valuable fisheries resources or otherwise significantly degrade
environmental quality.
2. • Plan for minimizing impacts on local flora and fauna.
• Screen for the presence of rare, threatened, or endangered species
which are indigenous to the project location, and modify design to
avoid or protect.
3. Prepare a program in advance to coordinate and reduce interference to
other waterway users.
4. • Identify and document locations of stationary installations.
• Modify dredging process/disposal plans to accommodate presence of
such structures.
5. Reduce noise level by decreasing operating level during quiescent
periods in the local community.
6. Reduce turbidity by efficient use of less intrusive dredging equipment,
silt curtains, dredging during low flow periods.
7. Plan for minimizing impact on important or sensitive benthic fauna and
flora through ecological investigation during project planning.
-------
n
1 =51
Table 9.3. Inland Navigation (continued)
18
U!
..
Sii »
«BM*
C» I f
m; i
Potential Negative Impacts
Mitigating Measures
Direct: Dredging Process and Disposal (continued)
8. Partitioning of natural and/or anthropogenic contaminants from
sediments to the water column.
9. Modified bathymetry causing changes in tidal currents, river
circulation, species diversity, and salinity.
10. Generation of turbidity plumes.
oo
i
ri! ! a
11. Loss of shoreline integrity.
12. Upland disposal of dredged material could modify terrestrial habitat.
13. Short-term air quality degradation resulting from dredging-related
operations.
14. Projects may result in stress on local cultures.
14
I II rf'M i! !l
8. • Perform physical and chemical analysis of sediments prior to
disturbance.,
• Locate potential "hot spots" and prepare plan to minimize sediment
resuspension in these areas.
9. Perform project area investigation, sampling, and modelling
characterization and design project accordingly to minimize impacts.
10. Use technologies such as temporary dams and/or barriers to lessen the
transport of suspended material away from the project area.
11. Evaluate shoreline geology and hydrology prior to project design to
ensure deepening will not cause modifications such as slumping and
increased erosion.
12. • Evaluate disposal options and select one with least impingement on
important habitat.
• Require reclamation plans for terrestrial sites.
13. Monitor local air quality and reduce operations if unacceptable quality
arises.
14. • Evaluate local sociocultural environment prior to project imple-
mentation.
• Develop specific mitigation measures with community involvement.
•it il
-------
Table 9.3. Inland Navigation (continued)
Potential Negative Impacts
Mitigating Measures
Direct: Dredging Process and Disposal (continued)
15. Covering of potential archaeological sites with dredge spoil.
16. Spills associated with increased maritime commerce.
Indirect: Dredging Processes/Disposal
yj 17. Uptake and accumulation of resuspended and partitioned sediment
K)
vo
contaminants by biota.
18. Occupational health effects on workers from sediment handling
operations.
IS. Evaluate disposal area for presence of important artifacts, and modify
design to salvage or protect artifacts.
16. Develop spill prevention and clean-up plans. Train a team to handle
spills.
17. Physical and chemical analyses permits proper planning prior to
project implementation, thus minimizing sediment resuspension
through proper selection of dredging equipment and implement
long-term biota tissue monitoring program.
18. • Train employees to be aware of potential occupational hazards and
establish a program on safety and health which includes all of the
following:
• site characterization and analysis
• site control
• training
• medical surveillance
• engineering controls, work practices and personal
protective equipment
• monitoring and informational programs
• handling raw and process materials
• decontamination procedures
• emergency response
• illumination
• sanitation at permanent and temporary facilities
-------
i-i : KI
i-ii
i i!
= - -"- - *-'-._ »= - -il =i ^4 = = =1~-m
i : ! -'='- -:z ==£ I i I • P H -f f = == •
! ?!
*_- ' --- —
- ' • -"i'iP'i - ; ; i a«j
= •
'St! l!
I Ml !
Mil!
MI h
M I,:
ff !:!
::*!
::: ' :: S :
==a ;: 6 |J ? ;
[ I !
:%{; '::
ir i
si
r '
i i
!j?3.
SB F
,;a a
>i IT »
S^ 1KB
:
«,«»,, ,
al Bsi ff ,
S1 «N «,
Table 9.3. Inland Navigation (continued)
5 I!1! ! I
!
ijliiE
sin,:!
III!!!
*«!l
Potential Negative Impacts
;!; syi^aj £ ,|
1 SO ('Indirect: Dredging Processes/Disposal (continued)
; ^ifti':*!' II
M
; 't'iljisl!;!
"i; Zif t' *: ^I19. Impacts of possible land disposal on groundwater, surface runoff
: "rj^, Ss and/or land use.
':: ,<,1K "'-si;
Mitigating Measures
'' i '. Cl
5;, •-1II
«' f(
•-•-'. fONij
; c^;^;-;r : 20. Transit patterns disrupted, noise and congestion created, and
iiiigivKJ, - i =-
i
i'; I ;»
'
to/from the construction sites.
19. • If land disposal is the selected option, contaminated wastes should
be contained in a structure that minimizes leachate generation and
release to local aquifers.
• Uncontaminated sediments have some practical uses; however,
wetlands reclamation is no longer considered an environmentally
sound option.
20. • Proper site selection can mitigate many of these problems, but
special transportation sector studies should be prepared during
project feasibility to select best routes to reduce new shorezone
facilities/industries.
• Develop emergency contingency plans to minimize risk of accidents
during transport.
• Initiate discussions on transport regulations, where none exist.
!;
ii
ii
ii
iii ; L
-------
Table 9.4. Port and Harbor Facilities
Potential Negative Impacts
Mitigating Measures
OJ
O\
Direct
1. Project location (e. g., enhancement or development of a waterway) may
affect sensitive habitats and/or valuable fisheries resources or otherwise
significantly degrade environmental quality.
2. Repositioning of "null zone" in port vicinity.
3. Removal and disturbance of flora and fauna at the dredging site.
4. Interference of stationary dredging equipment with other maritime
traffic.
5. Possible disturbance or damage to stationary installations such as
underwater cables, pipelines, and outfalls.
6. Objectionable noise to nearby residents, especially at night.
7. Increased short-term turbidity at dredging site causing decreased light
penetration and associated photosynthetic activity.
1. Perform screening analysis of site environs and ecology and select an
area that is not adjacent to sensitive habitat and would not displace
valuable fisheries resources.
2. Perform analyses to establish "controlling channel depth" which
represents an equilibrium between flow-associated transport energy and
sediment supply.
3. Plan for minimizing impacts on local flora and fauna, and screen for the
presence of rare, threatened or endangered species which are indigenous
to the project location.
4. Prepare a program in advance to coordinate and reduce interference to
other waterway users.
5. • Identify and document locations of stationary installations.
• Modify dredging process/disposal plans to accommodate presence of
such structures.
6. Reduce noise level by decreasing operating level during quiescent
periods in the local community.
7. Reduce turbidity by efficient use of less intrusive dredging equipment,
silt curtains, timing to coincide with low flow.
-------
i
c
9
I III!!
! ' IIM h!'!!
i •- i i ii li i „«, ; I ;
i i ;»!M iii! ""
: ? i* ,::'
i !iiii:i! rin|
i 111 Si ill! i i
•:'!! I i i
! t
f
n
=;
« :', : ;i!i ,
1 s i is :H i i
i ;i; : r! 'I ;
1 « I!
Mil
: I !!
Ni
:'"!t
- -
V -=--_" -s =:
.
Portand«Htrfaor|Fadtitiesi(conlinuedM
-
*~
i , '§
Potential Negative Impacts
Mitigating Measures
5 i : J Direct (continued)
1 : IS 8. Alterations of bottom surface, which may be unfavorable to the
! . '"*. success of indigenous benthic flora and fauna.
I ;b 9. Partitioning of natural and/or anthropogenic contaminants from
; ; ;: sediments to the water column.
I
M Us !
S 1 a !!
1 I 5 ii
8. Plan for minimizing impact on important or sensitive benthic fauna and! ' ' '! <
flora through ecological investigation during project planning. , « ,-
J r £ :: :
9. • Perform physical and chemical analysis of sediments prior to ' <
disturbance. i ', i 1! ! ,
M
• Locate potential "hot spots" and prepare plan to minimize sedimenh ; ; ,i M
resuspension in these areas. Hi: : :
10. Perform project area investigation, sampling, and characterization so i ;;
project planning can yield a design which minimizes impacts. J „ ;
11. Use technologies such as temporary dams and/or barriers to lessen the ; ? ;, ; ^
transport of suspended material away from the project area.
! !| 10. Modified bathymetry causing changes in tidal bore, river circulation,
i :K; species diversity, and salinity.
• !|l 11. Generation of turbidity plumes.
[ ii 12. Loss of shoreline integrity. 12. Evaluate shoreline geology and hydrology prior to project design toij J ,j |
]^ ensure deepening will not cause modifications such as slumping and] J i« • ,
; |J' increased erosion. H^t^~h
i | 13. Upland disposal of dredged material would modify terrestrial habitat. 13. • Evaluate disposal options and select one with least impingement on, i u | [
! ie! important habitat.
• Require reclamation plans for terrestrial sites.
14. Short-term air quality degradation resulting from dredging-related
operations.
14. Monitor local air quality and reduce operations if unacceptable quality: ; ;!
• i I'
I 1 !
anses.
-------
Table 9.4. Port and Harbor Facilities (continued)
Potential Negative Impacts
Mitigating Measures
Direct (continued)
15. Projects may result in stress on local cultures.
15. • Evaluate local sociocultural environment prior to project imple-
mentation.
• Develop specific mitigation measures with community involvement.
16. Covering of potential archaeological sites with dredge spoil.
16. • Evaluate disposal area for presence of important artifacts.
• Modify design or salvage or protect artifacts.
ON
OJ
17. Spills associated with increased maritime commerce.
17. « Develop spill prevention and clean-up plans.
• Train a team to handle spills.
18. Covering of valuable benthic species (e.g., mussels, clams) by 18. • Monitor turbidity and maintain concentration below 2 grams/liter.
sediment.
i • Limit dredging activity during critical spawn-and-set periods for
shellfish.
19. Increasing saltwater intrusion to groundwater and surface water.
19. • Major modification to channel depth and cross section should
consider the effect on saltwater encroachment.
• Analysis of effects on tidal bore and river flow will be helpful.
-------
'-IK
1 I •
I
i! (
« «
*i ^*flii = n^rsB^i i
M i
Vii
i « «3 R >«! • i I i ,
i I
! « ;: ?• ! Si : i ||
«
: 'Mi.* B
Kill
I!HIII !
; :
I , ,,-, =ii : : : -•
! ! |jii! i ft 5,^13169^ PortindMarborFacilities (conti
i i ;•;!;:?:=ii ! |p i!| i : : ;
I i ^st* :IL : . ; '
continued)
Potential Negative Impacts
Mitigating Measures
= Indirect: Dredging Processes/Disposal
- 20. Uptake and accumulation of resuspended and partitioned sediment
contaminants by biota.
: tO
21. • Occupational health effects on workers from sediment handling
operations.
I 4MJ • Accidents occur at higher than normal frequency because of lower
level of skill or labor.
I 22.
I
Impacts of possible land disposal on groundwater, surface runoff
and/or land use.
20.
21 .
Physical and chemical analyses permits proper planning prior to
project implementation, thus minimizing sediment resuspension
through proper selection of dredging equipment.
Implement long-term biota tissue monitoring program.
Train employees to be aware of potential occupational hazards and
establish a facility program on safety and health which includes all
of the following:
• site characterization and analysis
• site control
• training
• medical surveillance
• engineering controls, work practices and personal protective
equipment
• monitoring and informational programs
• handling raw and process materials
• decontamination procedures
• emergency response
• illumination
• sanitation at permanent and temporary facilities
i i'll11
li'lil!
! iiliill
22.
If land disposal is the selected option, contaminated wastes should
be contained in an engineered structure which minimizes leachale
generation and release to local aquifers.
-------
I
Table 9.4. Port and Harbor Facilities (continued)
Potential Negative Impacts
Mitigating Measures
Indirect: Dredging Processes/Disposal (continued)
NJ
V)
23. Transit patterns disrupted, noise and congestion created, and pedestrian
hazards aggravated by heavy trucks transporting materials to/from port
and harbor facilities.
• Uncontaminated sediments have some practical uses; however,
wetlands reclamation is no longer considered an environmentally
sound option.
23. • Proper site selection can mitigate many of these problems, but
special transportation sector studies should be prepared during
project feasibility to select best routes to reduce new shorezone
facilities/industries.
• Develop emergency contingency plans to minimize risk of accidents
during transport.
• Initiate discussions on transport regulations where none exist.
-------
BIB =
II IMIi I
- r 3 f i r ~
J= !__ i. = ! !l H
-5- -i « i '= -
* ^ ^iii.
EM Hill, mt
i«f i
I ,, |j
: N *!/ »•' • -;:"
u iii
iii iliii
• »
iiH !:«
J!f iliiiii
jliiii ^i!!™"-5-
Potential Negative Impacts
m
!W *)iKl!Direct
»tf ^Ml
a ^ i <' ;i" 1. Displacement of existing land uses.
I! lilSii
=:s sirr;
a P S i, ; ,i,.
':S a i , B"
« fc » 1 I ,1 ,!
I:« 4>: = :i
" ~ ON; f ,:
?3s r: T--
;;t : " a:
EM
' ? !!:" • 2. Destruction of environmentally critical areas.
i:S ii!!!
* r^ i «ii
si a ii •«
•!:« I j --=•
i* lie
Si Iliiii
I* >' !i!!
« ^ r«i= i 3. Danger to residents from hazardous natural conditions.
•j'= { i 3!: i
Btt
r mi!
i 1 ! °I
tf
if
N
iilii!
t'-«
1 I BIS
11 HI!
.ii.
!lii
• • as
M 11
I B ! i;
MI ii i I I
irfn
*" ft I ! i
•i
Mitigating Measures
1. • Ensure that due consideration is given to the proper trade-offs
between land values for housing and those of other uses, such as
prime farmland, forests, or other land uses or natural habitats of
value to society as a whole.
• Investigate existing planning and design standards to ensure that
they are suited to local conditions and not unnecessarily wasteful of
land.
• Assist in drafting new regulations that are more appropriate.
2. Ensure that regionally critical environmental sites such as major
forested areas, major water bodies and wetlands, habitats containing
rare and endangered species, etc., are identified and not threatened by
project location.
3. • Ensure that project site is not located in the following areas:
• major floodplain
• coastal zone inundation areas
• areas of unstable soil or subsurface conditions
• areas of highly saline soils
• areas subject to landslides
• seismically or volcanically active areas
• excessively steep or wet areas
• areas where significant risk from disease vectors exist, or any
other areas of significant natural hazard
Design accordingly if site cannot be moved.
-------
Table 9.5. Large-Scale Housing Projects (continued)
Potential Negative Impacts
Mitigating Measures
Direct (continued)
4. Danger to residents from hazardous man-made conditions.
OJ
K>
O\
-4
5. Hazard to residents from air, water, or noise pollution from other
adjacent or nearby land uses.
5. •
Identify areas that have significant man-made hazards such as filled
land, areas subject to subsidence from mining activity, groundwater,
oil or other extractive processes.
Identify areas where solid or liquid, or toxic wastes may be or have
been dumped.
Investigate site conditions with proper geotechnical or chemical
testing procedures.
Ensure that adequate funding and technical expertise are available to
deal with the special conditions.
Investigate alternate sites.
Ensure that the site is located away from such pollution sources.
Do not locate down-wind of significant point sources of air pollution
such as smoke stacks, for example.
Identify noise sheds around airports, major roads, etc.
Provide buffers of other compatible uses of adequate width between
residential areas and sources of pollution.
Take measures to abate pollution at the source, if feasible, such as
noise barriers along expressways.
Investigate alternate sites.
-------
11
J( ... , ,--, ,,-
fli I iMlli SI,
i i || ;,,! r
ii j;ii>i ii!h
* - ! , , f 5«L t< i ,, ,
^ i M sisi p^*s n i n = i
;i i ii hM •
Ijj i; lih
'"= '
1
I ! Hi I fit I
i
lM
=- > 1
M ji
B H
ililj
I ill i
i|ll!
:»-* i:l: !
i!:! i
]• !
_ '
,7 ' I M !I?J M- = ::
Table 9.5. Large-Scale Housing iProjecfe :(conttrwed)
III!!!
i
r! * ; ««(] ]»:
--I Siii,,, IP;
~-m -~", =- _"-j="C- L^"
Si :*( « ifl
l
i ;«i
H Bis !*i:
!ii ;j:
» "J u ^jl •"
^:
Potential Negative Impacts
Mitigating Measures
1 r ^I i '
I
mi i
:j I Direct (continued)
"J F.
!» I 6. Hazard to residents from air pollution due to site location being in an
,* ! area subject to frequent temperature inversions.
-» 7
i! 7. Dislocation of existing resident populations.
I.M V-: -;-,--•: ,
i §rr, ;= -. • * ^mj =- -rf:
w !*i i :
IP Km, it
^ J I 8. Destruction of historic or cultural resources.
K) 1 i
ovjj.).-
ii
:( i 9. Overloading of existing infrastructure and services.
•B :-| -: =^ ^M r^I .
-- :
(B »r«; ,*«s, „
'l««= ¥-,; iB;!
i* :-:f •-: _- - ':
;=:?; ^ss -^;
B I: ---Sv'^ [;i
10. Excessive depletion of resources such as lumber or fuel, or overtaxing
of traditional industries, such as brickmaking.
I i«: I
f |i« E^;:I .- :
r:
!K =a =¥, .7 t^=-:- =-=. !
sss-- 51 =Ki ", i==sO-- ^ihl
111
ii!
6. • Seek alternate site location if pollution is from existing sources that 1= I 1
are difficult to abate.
ifli | I
• Otherwise, design project with low densities and non-polluting i j
technologies for heating, cooking, etc. ^p! ;
iJpii ; ]
7. Ensure that any involuntary resettlement is done in accordance with \ j
proper standards or consider alternate sites. 'Q< I j
• *-• i I
I
8. • Consider alternate sites or make provision for historic culturally-^ \ :
significant areas to be set aside in specially zoned areas. ^: :
• Adapt project design to include existing historic or cultural «
resources. S!: "
IW' •- ':
* :
9. • Coordinate with other planning goals and objectives for region.
itf i i
• Upgrade existing infrastructure and services, if feasible. ;ij; i
• Consider alternate sites.
^
, f
10. • Review capacity of local resources and industries to provide for
large-scale construction and upgrade, if feasible. *;: ,
Select materials and design criteria according to local conditions and |;,
availability of resources.
!•»
I
I--
Ill
-------
Table 9.5. Large-Scale Housing Projects (continued)
Potential Negative Impacts
Mitigating Measures
Direct (continued)
UJ
to
Local and Site Scale Impacts
11. Damage to sites and their immediate surroundings resulting from the
disruption of the basic natural framework of the environment, in
particular the soils, vegetation, and drainage network. (See below for
more detailed comments.)
12. Degradation of habitats caused by fragmentation.
13. M'ore extreme flood/drought cycles, increased erosion and siltation and
degradation of stream biota and riparian vegetation, etc., caused by
increased runoff from developed sites.
Design for maximum efficiency in materials and energy use.
Encourage the study of indigenous customs and techniques for
building and incorporate in project design.
It. • Identify the basic natural systems of a site and its immediate
surroundings and protect with set-asides for open space, easements,
buffer areas, etc.
• Adapt layouts to fit natural patterns rather than imposing rigid
geometries.
12. Maintain and/or design open space networks to follow natural site
features, such as stream corridors, and connect them throughout the
site and local and regional open space systems.
13. • Preserve existing stable drainage patterns on site.
• Preserve existing vegetation, particularly intact natural habitats.
• Institute a stormwater management plan, which should consider
such strategies as:
• minimizing impervious area
• increasing infiltration to soil by use of recharge areas
• the use of natural vegetated swales instead of pipes, or
• by using detention or retention facilities with graduated outlet
control structures
-------
II 11 I MM
1 I HI l|
m m
Table 9.5.
I! I 1
! I !
! \ |
• Jib: sits - : , ,-,---, ---,;• :
i i IjTl,; -= = - , I* = I | i ™i I
1 I
I M
''I' « I ! i I I -f
Potential Negative Impacts
Mitigating Measures
Local and Site Scale Impacts (continued)
14. Depletion and/or pollution of local groundwater resources.
N) =
<1
O
IS. Degradation of soil cover from erosion, removal, or loss of soil
structure due to compaction.
• Use "soft" engineering techniques for soil and bank stabilization,
such as vegetative stabilization (soil bio-engineering) in preference
to built structures.
14. • Ensure that projected use of groundwater is within capacity of
natural system to replenish itself.
• Avoid "mining" groundwater particularly in drier climates.
• Avoid using open channel, sprinklers, or other wasteful irrigation
techniques for landscaping in drier climates.
• Use indigenous vegetation that requires less water, drip irrigation
or shaded plantings.
i
• Ensure that soils are suitable for septic tank or other on-site'
treatment.
» Design centralized systems to avoid leakage, etc. -
• Design stormwater management systems as suggested above, in
particular, use vegetation to retain, recharge and purify stormwater. =
IS. • Have both temporary (during construction) and permanent erosion
control plans.
-------
Table 9.5. Large-Scale Housing Projects (continued)
Potential Negative Impacts
Mitigating Measures
Local and Site Scale Impacts (continued)
Temporary control plans should include:
• silt fencing
• temporary silt trap basins
• short term seeding or mulching of exposed
soil areas, (particularly on slopes)
• limitations on access for heavy machinery and the
storage of materials to avoid soil compaction
Permanent erosion control plans should focus on the establishment
of stable native vegetation communities.
Ensure that topsoil in construction areas is stripped and stored for
future use and not illegally removed from site.
16. Loss or degradation of vegetation from unnecessary removal or
mechanical damage.
16. • Identify important stands of vegetation, large contiguous stands of
forest or other natural habitat, vegetation on steep slopes, vegetated
stream corridors or swales.
• Incorporate these areas into design layout or open space system.
• Protect such areas during construction by temporary fencing and
limitations on access for heavy machinery and materials storage.
-------
Id !! '!' i! !
ii
ill!
isii ; i « i
1H! f
1
M!* = = iTTli^ "-:=- =
= -a = s=== . -•-*.-- ==5 ,_ - == s ; «aa-^asii - B = =
I U
"-i- ;pi-^N i - ^- =i :
H
III! Ii |M Hi * !! fl-: !i :! -rr-r?
i
fl I* I ^ -=
si ill
Iii ill!
-i-==i r iw
:n>: ; !i :
' ;" i
, ,„ ;
,tftf f ii «
!••
»|E
, j[ !i
: !' ji
i * : i!
!!i I si M
M i ! - = - i ' ; = . = i I
!; : BM ill ? TablB9J5.« Large-Scale Housing Proj eels (continued) , : . _ . i .;
, I !:ll P «
i i f*J^ is ^- i - i
1 ! I I I •- ! I
I j
^,r Potential Negative Impacts
;'h ;:; Local and Site Scale Impacts (continued)
m
-
j!
i! Degradation of habitat from inappropriate management or introduction
:a 111
; ; KW
= -,
;' li» : = . SK, eW
iii i »
Ii! £ H I
|(l| s i lit u«
1
ill i'i, !5; ft
ii =« isi st
si j,i !! 6
of invasive exotic species.
r
17. • Protect natural habitat from destructive management or maintenance
practices, such as the removal of understory vegetation from
' woodlands, or excessive clearance of vegetation from stream banks.
• Do not use invasive exotic species for landscaping or reforestation.
ii5 ;,: ,. >t
jjl III ;lj 9
IP si MI a
:
III ill iii I 1
% j*
i* - -/-: '- .-;> ^^P
J P :-. d !9 " S i W 1 ^^^^
J
-------
Table 9.6. Solid Waste Collection and Disposal Systems
Potential Negative Impacts
Mitigating Measures
to
^
U)
Direct
1. Uncollected refuse clogs open drains and sewers.
2. Aesthetic degradation and property value loss from litter and
clandestine dumping.
3. Smoke from open burning of uncollected refuse.
4. Populations of disease vectors (e.g., flies, rats, cockroaches) increase
where refuse is either uncollected or open dumped.
5. Poorly located communal containers create wasted time and effort for
residents.
6. Lack of resident cooperation with collection systems which do not fit
social and cultural behavior of residents.
7. Dust during loading of refuse from stationary communal containers.
8. Refuse scattered from stationary communal containers, plastic bags,
baskets, etc., and by animals.
1. Provide complete refuse collection service to the urban environment.
2. Same as above.
3. Same as above.
4. Same as above.
5. Examine movement patterns of residents and survey them for the
distance they would be willing to walk.
6. • Survey residents for social and cultural behavior:
• who performs the chore of waste discharge
• at what hours are they at home
• how much time could they spent on this chore
• how much self-reliance will they accept
• what can they afford
7. Minimize extra handling and maximize containment to the extent
affordable.
8. Educate residents to discharge refuse just before the scheduled time of
collection service.
-------
; •!
II
i ii in ii!
II1H11
I I ill a i
II
• 1 MS " I
SI
ill! ,Q;l :hi ,;
I! 11 iniii m; ! i
=-
i > it
1 in
_/*&JrS • ;s
• 1 I a ft,
H3 9
""""" i::ii > '-, ,
_ .-,.- i i • i
;«ii»!ii' i > ' i
^ , ii : , *»,», : .
«!C p if I " £*r- Ji " ?
1 i ra i » EJr^t § -! = I lii^-ii =il l-s ^ s ^ k -« - s ^ "° = =• •
*'!|1 ' **!; ; j;TableWi^^lWbteCo!!ectio¥and Dfeposa! S^tems (cobtinu^ :
- f- ; •, !5 i ; : • ! i ill :; ? I i
(!I!
I
liK!
1
i!
Potential Negative Impacts
Mitigating Measures
Direct (continued)
9. Worker accidents (e.g., back injuries) when refuse bins are
overweight.
9. • Appropriate size refuse containers (e.g., 80 to 100 liter capacity).
• Provide covers for containers so that rain does not add weight to the
refuse.
_ 10. Dust and litter along roadways used by refuse collection vehicles.
10. Provide enclosed refuse collection vehicles or cloth tarps to cover open
vehicles.
OJ
to 11- Worker hazard when medical wastes are not specially handled.
n:
11. • Separate collection of medical wastes using dedicated vehicles.
• Provide a separate disposal area at the refuse landfill.
i|| 1112. Worker hazard when potentially hazardous wastes are not specially
ii!!l handled.
:ssn
11! ,
12. • Survey industries to assess nature and quantity of hazardous wastes.
• Provide separate collection and disposal in specially designed
systems.
• Test for waste compatibility before disposal.
13. Dust from unloading and loading operations at transfer stations.
13. Provide enclosure to the loading and unloading areas, as well as
ventilation and air filtration.
j!' 14. Loss of income to pickers and loss of low-cost feedstock to industry
^!s; when recovery of secondary materials is hindered.
14. • Design collection, transfer and/or disposal systems to accommodate
continuation of recycling.
-------
Table 9.6. Solid Waste Collection and Disposal Systems (continued)
Potential Negative Impacts
Mitigating Measures
Direct (continued)
OJ
Ul
IS. Dust from unloading and spreading/grading operations at land disposal
sites.
16. Smoke from open burning or refuse at land disposal sites.
17. Odors from land disposal sites.
18. Odors from composting systems.
• Increase source separation and recovery of secondary materials
before waste discharge for collection.
• Provide job training and employment assistance to pickers losing
occupation.
15. • Provide buffer zone around land disposal site.
• Pave access roads.
• Design location of working face to minimize truck traffic.
• Water spray the working areas to suppress dust.
16. Spread and compact incoming refuse, cover daily with soil, install gas
control systems.
17. Same as above.
18. Maintain aerobic conditions during composting.
19. Contamination of ground and/or surface water by leachate from land
disposal systems.
19. • Locate land disposal systems where soils underlying landfill are
relatively impermeable and have attenuative properties.
------- An error occurred while trying to OCR this image.
-------
Table 9.6. Solid Waste Collection and Disposal Systems (continued)
Potential Negative Impacts
Mitigating Measures
Direct (continued)
25. Contamination of soil and potential biological uptake of toxic chemicals
(e.g., heavy metals) from application of compost.
-j Indirect
26. Decline in civic pride and public morale when refuse visibly degrades
the urban environment.
27. Loss of tourism when refuse visibly degrades urban environment.
28. Waste of municipal revenues when collection equipment is inappro-
priate and collection service in inefficient.
25. • Based on crops planned to receive land application of compost and
chemical concentrations they can tolerate.
• Determine which constituent is land-limiting.
• Then, based on concentrations of this constituent in compost,
determine the total concentration which can be applied before
phytotoxic levels are reached.
• From this, determine amount of compost which can be applied.
26. • Provide public education to obtain public cooperation with en-
vironmental regulations about littering and clandestine dumping.
• Provide adequate collection and disposal service.
27. • Same as above.
• Also, provide regular street cleaning of roadways and urban en-
vironments commonly traveled by tourists.
28. • Pilot test collection systems before implementation.
• Regularly evaluate costs of collection in various neighborhoods by
various techniques.
• Undertake measures to lower costs and improve service.
-------
ii m r
Ii
!! ::i! i!::?;« i
i i I '•' '-l\ f
!;s! i
m
H
11!
ji: ) I
i • Ii it M!
II i! ihliiiiiiiiilii '" :
a
-------
Table 9.6. Solid Waste Collection and Disposal Systems (continued)
Potential Negative Impacts
Mitigating Measures
OJ
k>
Indirect (continued)
31. Deterrent to industrial development by environmentally conscious
industries when competent disposal facilities do not exist for hazardous
wastes.
32. Loss in public's faith in the political system when inappropriate solid
waste facilities (e.g., incinerators) are constructed and not used.
33. Increase in country trade imbalance and energy consumption when
there is a decrease in recycling of secondary materials from wastes into
industrial feedstock.
31. • Provide special facilities for receipt of potentially hazardous wastes.
• Provide equitable environmental regulation and enforcement at the
national level so that all industries are operating under the same
environmental standards.
32. • Set up institutional arrangements, such as an interministerial task
force whose mandate is to review technical and economic viability
of large projects and prioritize them for financial assistance (as in
Indonesia).
• Set up institutional mechanisms whereby all large projects have an
environmental and economic impact assessment presented for review
at the national level prior to receiving approval for implementation
(as in Thailand).
33. • Provide incentives to private sector entrepreneurial initiatives in
recovering secondary materials or recycling.
• Improve government procurement specifications so that producing
products from recycled materials in encouraged.
• Provide public education which encourages recycling.
• Facilitate source segregation of recyclables and separate collection.
• Design transfer systems and/or disposal systems to accommodate
recycling from mixed refuse.
-------
ill
nil
;; it
u a
IS 5
IMS
II M
I 1 « !K
I i 1 "«
!!:("»
i ! i IB!
\ti fp
y|
ill I
Hi
till
I! !"• 181 KII
!! Ill* I
;j HI ill I iii I
iii
?' mt i i . i" Will !BI 1 i
I ! !ll!l HP RII I!
;y ± i M !
111
;:![
!l
ii* ,1
IB ii
MS Mil
S3 33 2=11
w*:Jl!i l
Vii, ,-J
lilii! i
•i iiii
~
„ * if in
\
I I lif
|]J jTable9.7. =Tourism
« !i
I ft. il I
a SIM',
I! !! I !
I Si II i:
II I! II S
i Hi iii
•-T-
Potential Negative Impacts
Mitigating Measures
I,
!' i»
jl !J
m
1 1 .:;
L 1 =^ =
1 ! >i
>; g.
ii-
hi!
p H
r 1 -F 1
L P i«;
? 1 ||
=
.
m
f
-
_
i
i
r 11 :
= 1 S V-.. -
Direct
1. • Beach mining of sand for construction.
• Destruction of reef for aggregate materials used in construction.
2. Destruction of wetlands, forests, other unique/sensitive habitats or
cultural, historical and archaeologically important sites.
U)
oo 3 . Erosion resulting from uncontrolled clearing, infrastructure construction
° such as roads and marinas.
4. Loss of "free" environmental services from natural systems and
degradation of air, water, land resources.
5. • Water pollution from inappropriate sewage or solid waste disposal.
• marine effluent disposal
• residential sewage disposal
• marinas
• infiltration to groundwater
1. • Control of construction contractor. :m:
ii'M
:iii!|
• Submission of plans in accordance with local ordinances on beach; |i ii
sand mining. j ;j (|
= ii - =
L=- ir
2. • Areas considered for development should have zoning plans to!!!]
account for natural geographic and socioeconomic condition. ::;!:
• Base development phase on an inventory of resources.
Develop erosion and sediment control plans.
Carrying capacity should be defined so that target tourist population Ij ji
can be sustained without overburdening existing infrastructure and
resources. !!!!
Include improvements in project design.
Allowance made for use of existing municipal or regional collection]!;:
and disposal system or construction of on-site sewage treatmentp_
plant. j ji
ili;
Liquid waste should not be discharged onto beaches, coral reefs, or !
other sensitive areas. ;• H
rt M
Verify local capacity to monitor and enforce pollution regulations. "
iil
In
-------
Table 9.7. Tourism Development (continued)
Potential Negative Impacts
Mitigating Measures
00
Direct (continued)
6. Solid and liquid waste disposal creates nuisance conditions adjacent to
amenities.
Access problems created:
• traffic congestion
• noise
• minor and localized air pollution
• people density greater than services available
6. • Appropriate waste disposal options required to manage potential
problem.
• Landfill versus incineration alternatives, as well as waste
' minimization will be considered.
7. Access problems minimized by integrated planning to reduce traffic and
pedestrian congestion, noise.
8. Sea turtle nesting affected (special case).
Beach monitoring for turtle protection coupled with beach zoning
and development guideline to preserve the natural beach
environment from the primary dune seaward.
Restricting night activities on nesting beaches during egg-laying and
incubation periods.
9. Displacement of human population.
Plan and implement program of compensation and resettlement.
See Chapter 3 for discussion of involuntary resettlement concerns.
-------
! I!
li it
if n
a i
^Table 9.7.j;Tburtsin Development (continued)
I!
I [N
j !
I ,;
Potential Negative Impacts
Mitigating Measures
I Indirect
* ~j=i- Ij fni
N i!' H ll-' !• Conflicts with other resource use such as fisheries, agriculture.
* jc It rv=:3 i
7:. PI:
£•>£'
1. • Conceive tourism development in framework of national, regional,
local socioeconomic development plans to integrate new objectives
into development strategies.
• Identify zones most suitable for tourism.
,.
H i fflDji
OJ
-
I
S «» «*•
i« •* -T"
1 1 iii
* *• ^?":
*!
• Stress to capacity to manage the "tourist or related environment."
• legislation and polling constraints
• agency support lacking
• staffing and financial resources to mitigate impacts
absent/reduced
• inadequate training in environmental management
Multiplier effect on other industries causes increased stress on natural
resources or services (craft market, vendor, taxi driver, suppliers,
farmers/fishermen).
| 4. Congestion, overcrowding.
!P n • S. Natural hazards peculiar to developed site such as coastal storms,
K ( ! flooding, landslides, earthquakes, hurricanes, volcanos, may stress
r,-I infrastructure and reduce long-term benefits.
2. • Comprehensive legislative action frequently required to address
direct and indirect impacts and their monitoring and evaluation.
• Staffing and equipment support must be budgeted, including
whatever training necessary to mitigate impacts and monitor the
"environmental protection plan" or other mitigation plan.
3. • Provide adequate infrastructure and services support to meet
physical, social and economic needs of the region.
• Recognize that "overbuilding" may be a persistent problem.
4. Design (urban areas and transport networks, etc.) according to carrying
capacity of natural setting.
S. Design facilities to: (a) meet best possible specifications for natural
hazard amelioration; (b) take advantage of natural resources such as
wetlands ability to buffer storms or absorb treated wastewater (see
"Natural Hazards" section).
L
ill 6: ;H
Jll!
-------
Table 9.8. Wastewater Collection, Treatment, Reuse, and Disposal Systems
Potential Negative Impacts
Mitigating Measures
Direct
1. Disturbance of stream channels, aquatic plant and animal habitat,
and spawning and nursery areas during construction.
1. • Do not route sewer lines in stream channels.
• Require erosion/sedimentation controls during construction.
u>
k)
00
U)
2. Alterations in watershed hydrologic balance when Wastewater is
exported by collection in large upstream areas and discharge
downstream.
2. • Consider sub-regional and small community systems in water-short
areas.
• Take full advantage of opportunities for wastewater reclamation/reuse,
especially in water-short areas.
3. Degradation of neighborhoods or receiving water quality from sewer
overflows, treatment works bypasses, or treatment process failure.
3. • Phase construction of collector systems and treatment works to avoid
raw wastewater discharges.
• Select appropriate technology.
• Design for reliability, ease of maintenance.
• Implement management and training recommendations, monitoring
program, and industrial waste pretreatment program (see text for
guidelines).
4. Degradation of receiving water quality despite normal system operation.
4. • Site and design treatment works and disposal or reuse systems on the
basis of adequate data on the characteristics of the wastewater and the
assimilative capacity of the receiving water body.
-------
ii
11
ijjj
! I" I' :ll
II I
1 H
II !
Table 9.8. Wastewater Collection, Treatment, Reuse, and Disposal Systems (continued) = • |
:«: i-'.1jj_ ~,|S 't, i- ,-:l
"I!,,!
Potential Negative Impacts
Direct (continued)
,Li ilii
IS !S
::3 .v_ i- •-' i"'
:J: .''
IB S N(
' f ^fh^-^fvjff:! '- fc f= i°: =
;^^frir"?11 \i: :;:
-= - =E= = f . = :i
1001
!ll
S. Public health hazards in vicinity of discharges or reuse sites
during normal operation of system.
;
:
SaiV-t-J-'Kf *'LT : -'-•
; ;:;:
i
;
'^>ri,-^**-!-L !
: :!ii
:"; J;si;J*'? : :;J
1
; ~°° ^
IB ! ^Mk.
^pWSjtpwp^tp^^a ; ^^^^^
IE !(ft «^ffiwi ; j ^^B
^^
6. • Contamination at land application sites:
soil and crops by toxic substances and pathogens
groundwater by toxic substances and nitrogen
ii «ii
IE Si!
is eii
I!!
Mitigating Measures
Hi
• Use mathematical models for siting surface water discharges and
determining required level of treatment, and for siting and designing
ocean outfalls.
• Take full advantage of appropriate land application alternatives,
especially in water-short areas.
• Implement monitoring program and industrial waste pre-treatment
program (see text for guidelines).
S. * Select appropriate technology.
• Ensure preapplication treatment and operating guidelines for land
application and other water reuse systems are adequate to safeguard
health of humans and livestock.
• Restrict access to wastewater or sludge disposal sites where health
hazards are unavoidable.
6. • Site and design treatment works and disposal or reuse systems on
the basis of adequate data on the characteristics of the wastewater
and land application site.
• Implement monitoring program and effective industrial waste
pretreatment program (see text for guidelines).
• Ensure preapplication treatment and operating guidelines for land
application and other wastewater reuse systems are adequate.
-------
Table 9.8. Wastewater Collection, Treatment, Reuse, and Disposal Systems (continued)
Potential Negative Impacts
Mitigating Measures
Direct (continued)
7. Failure to achieve desired beneficial uses of receiving waters despite
normal system operation.
8. Odors and noise from treatment process or sludge disposal
operations.
K>
oo
9. Emissions of volatile organic compounds from treatment process.
10. Soil, crop or groundwater contamination and disease vector breeding
pr feeding at sludge storage, reuse or disposal sites.
7. • Establish realistic use objective and select water quality criteria
consistent with desired uses.
• Establish system performance standards by modeling or other means
which will result in meeting criteria.
8. • Site treatment works only near compatible land uses.
• Select appropriate technology.
• Include odor control and low-noise equipment in design.
• Implement management and training recommendations (see text).
9. Establish effective industrial waste pretreatment program (see text for
guidelines).
10. • Incorporate sludge management in system feasibility studies,
technology selection, design, staffing, training, budgeting and start-
up plan.
• Implement effective industrial waste pretreatment program (see text
for guidelines).
• Ensure preapplication treatment and operating guidelines for land
application and other reuse or disposal systems are adequate to
safeguard health of humans and livestock.
• Inspect for compliance with operating guidelines.
-------
i
ill
nri
I
i _
i
I iHps
'
:W:
11
••
tl
lli
i
M
; f MS
w - MI i if !
Table 9.8. Wastewater Collection, Treatment, Reuse, and Disposal Systems (continued)
i i .. i
\ it
ill
Potential Negative Impacts
Mitigating Measures
I Direct (continued)
il
; It. Worker accidents during construction and operation, especially in deep
E liil trenching operations.
il
*' 12. Worker accidents caused by gas accumulation in sewers and other
a i-
, confined spaces or by hazardous materials discharged into sewers.
1 ;!![
ux-ii
k)^;'
11. Enforce adherence to safety procedures.
12. • Emphasize safety education and training for system staff. !»
:ft
• Implement effective industrial waste pretreatment program (see text
for guidelines). *
s
• Provide appropriate safety equipment and monitoring instruments..
Enforce adherence to safety procedures.
I! ill
11,
is
! I i
!E 4
fit( 13. Serious public and worker health hazard from chlorine accidents.
Ji| 14. Nuisances and public health hazard from sewer overflows and
|| backups.
is
ti
13.
14.
Incorporate safety provisions in design, operating procedures, and
training. i
i
Prepare contingency plan for accident response. b
Routinely inspect sewers for illegal connections and obstructions, j
Clean sewers as necessary. ;
f
Provide monitoring system with alarms for pump station failure. J
Provide alternate power supply at critical pump stations. ;
F
Educate public to prevent disposal of solid waste in sewers. jj
t i i
-------
Table 9.8. Wastewater Collection, Treatment, Reuse, and Disposal Systems (continued)
Potential Negative Impacts
Mitigating Measures
Direct (continued)
15. Failure to achieve public health improvement in serviced area.
16. Dislocation of residents by plant siting.
17. Perceived or actual nuisances and adverse aesthetic impacts in
neighborhood of treatment works.
)
oo 18. Accidental destruction of archaeological sites during excavation.
IS. Conduct sanitation and hygiene education program.
16. Assist with resettlement (see "Involuntary Resettlement" section).
17. Incorporate neighborhood improvements and useful public facilities in
project.
18. Include notification and protection procedures for cultural properties
in construction contract documents (see "Cultural Property" section).
Indirect
19. Unplanned development induced or facilitated by infrastructure.
19. • Coordinate installation of sewerage with land use planning.
• Strengthen land use control regulations and institutions.
• Integrate planning for infrastructure in urban development projects.
20. Regional solid waste management problems exacerbated by sludge.
20. • Incorporate sludge, excreta and septage in regional solid waste
management planning and in Wastewater system feasibility studies
and technology selection.
• Implement industrial waste pretreatment program.
-------
PM
ii i
511 i -~
fit J i j; i
I
I i!«! I I !
Nil! !
i ii!! i i
;;
T
l! I
ill1"1! "I
m rtr
li
i;
|;
M
1 I
s MM
HH
!li llTable 9,8. Wastewater Collection, Treatment,! Reiiej and DisposafrSystehis (continued) •
- i
ii
jl
II
II iffl 11
Potential Negative Impacts
= Indirect (continued)
Mitigating Measures
21. Loss of fisheries productivity.
OJ
to
00
00
22. Reduction of tourist or recreational activity.
21. • Evaluate importance of receiving water in local and regional
fisheries.
• Implement mitigating measures for direct impacts 3, 4 and 7.
22. • Give special attention to real or perceived nuisances and aesthetic
impacts in selecting site and technology.
• Implement mitigating measures for direct impacts 3, 4, 5, 7, 8
and 14.
-------
Table 10.1. Industrial Hazard Management
Potential Negative Impacts
Mitigating Measures
Direct
1. Fires, explosions, emission of toxic gases, vapors, dust, emission of
toxic liquids, radiation and various combination of these effects.
1.
Provision of bunkers or blast walls.
Firewalls/fireproofing of structures.
Provision of escape routes for employees.
Provision of safety and emergency training for employees.
Implementation of emergency procedure on- and off-site.
Provision of public alert systems and education of public.
Planning and training for evacuation.
Provision of safety buffer zones around the plant boundary.
OJ
to
00
2. Explosives: explosion
2. • Storage and handling should be according to the manufacturers
recommendation.
Special precautions should be taken against theft and fires and during
destruction.
The following general rules should be applied:
• Lighting in the storage area should be natural or by permissible
lights.
• Lamps should be vapor proof and switch should be outside the
building.
• Only tools of wood or other non-metallic material should be used.
• Cases of explosive should not be piled in stacks more than 6 feet
high.
-------
i 5
I ^ s*; ^
{ 1 !J!M!1 f
I ! Mi" * tit Ji
! ! >'«=: s ^!OJ
i - ^ =-i = ^» y^
: i ;:*'
(O
Nil 1110
"ill ii
i
-fill I m
"i! H _ l!!
-a
•iiii ji;
-r » latT r_
11
HH =« * *fl i l!
;* aii ,
I » MM'pj'aT
: as B: :«« i it- •. : :(iis»,iH
: v:i :-
III! I
II
II
!
C ; |L , [ Table Industrial Hazard Management (continued)
! S =: =" " " l ' " "
i i i
:! I;!!:! ''
Potoitial Negative Impacts
Direct (continued)
13. Flammable Materials; fire hazard
IS:1^? f
I 4. Oxidizing Agents: fire hazard
j
J
Mitigating Measures
• Cases of explosives should be stored topside up, so that cartridges ; i
are lying flat. \ ;
• They should be turned at regular intervals, as this will help to : !
prevent their deterioration. |
3. • Store in places that are cool enough to prevent accidental ignition in ;
the event that vapors of the flammable materials mix with the air. !
• Provide adequate ventilation in storage space, so that leakage of such ! >
vapors from containers will be diluted enough to prevent a spark from
igniting them. : ;
• Locate storage area well away from areas of fire hazard (for example, ; i
where torch-cutting of metals is to be performed). :
• Keep apart from powerful oxidizing agents materials that are suscep- < '
tible to spontaneous heating (explosive or materials that react with air
or moisture to evolve heat).
• Provide fire-fighting equipment.
• Prevent smoking or use of bare filament heaters.
• Storage area must be electrically grounded and equipped with auto-
matic smoke or fire detection equipment.
4. • Store away from liquids of low flash point (flammable). ;
• Keep area cool and ventilated.
-------
Table 10.1. Industrial Hazard Management (continued)
Potential Negative Impacts
Mitigating Measures
Direct (continued)
u>
to
5. Water Sensitive Materials: evolve heat, flammable gases or explosive
gases in contact with water, steam or water solution.
• Keep fuel away.
• The area should be fireproof.
• Note: Normal firefighting equipment is of little use since the
blanketing or smothering effect of fire extinguishers is less effective
because the oxidizers supply their own oxygen.
5. • Store in dry and cool areas.
• Because many of these materials are also flammable, it is essential
that no automatic sprinkler system be used in the storage area.
• Such an area should have no water coming to it at all.
• Heating may be electrical or with hot, dry air.
• Storage building must be waterproof, located on high ground and
separated from other storage.
• Particular attention should be paid to the following:
• pocketing of light gases under the roof
• introduction of sources of ignition
• periodic inspection
• automatic detection systems
• alarms in case of dangerous concentrations of flammable gases
-------
I i IN
1 a
I ill!
m m i yi i •
III! !!
1
:
i
i
!j :£ S^
"^T"
= |; =^
iin i
—_ - =l : =
^«y i=: i
" I---: »ll i
Mi K: »i
!i
{!'
II!
-i?i*^ i
in
i i •
II
7= : . 9
Table 10.1. Industrial Hazard Management (continued) \
ii!>
» rf 1 B:»: II
|r -t « . I |=si|=ii
Potential Negative Impacts
Mitigating Measures
- OJ
to
Direct (continued)
6. Acid and Acid Fume-Sensitive Materials; evolve heat, hydrogen and
flammable and/or explosive gases.
6. • Do not store acids in proximity to such materials (e.g., storing acids >
on structural alloys sheds). ! i
• If metal is used in construction, it should be painted or otherwise :
rendered immune to attack by acid. \ "\
; !
• Area must be kept cool, ventilated and periodically inspected. ; ;
• Source of ignition must be kept away. '
7. Pressurized Storage of Flammable Fluids: when subjected to fire can
cause "Boiling Liquid Expanding Vapor Explosion" (BLEVE).
7. • Tanks should be stored upright and chained or othenvise securely; !
attached to some substantial support to minimize the chance of falling ;
over and breaking or straining the valve or other part of the tank. ;
• Tank storage area should be kept cool, out of direct rays of sun, and ;
away from hot pipes. >
• Provide means (sprinkler) of keeping the tanks cool in case of external
or internal fire. ^
• Take care to keep from damaging tanks in handling. ;
i
• Valves must be operated carefully and kept in good condition. ;
• Do not hammer valve cocks. ;
• Discourage tampering with tanks in any way. '
-------
Table 10.1. Industrial Hazard Management (continued)
Potential Negative Impacts
Mitigating Measures
Direct (continued)
8. Toxic Materials; cause serious danger (death or serious injury to people
or environment).
U)
K)
9. Corrosive Materials: destroy containers, and react to evolve toxic gases
in contact with substances such as cyanides and arsenides.
8. • Reduction of inventories in storage and in process.
• Modify process or storage conditions (e.g., store and process toxic
gases in a large volume of nontoxic carrier material).
• Store hazardous gas as a refrigerated liquid rather than under
pressure.
• Improve shutdown and secondary containment which will reduce the
amount escaping from containment or from site.
• Automatic shutdown will reduce the amount of material escaping from
containment:
• water curtains will restrict gas release.
• dikes (or bunds) will restrict liquid release.
9. • Keep storage or process area cool and ventilated to prevent
accumulation of fumes.
• Keep containers closed and labeled.
• Pamt all exposed metal in the vicinity of such storage and check it
periodically for weakening by corrosion.
• Keep isolated from materials that would produce highly toxic fumes
if contacted.
• Provide instructions for and supply of specific neutralizing agent to be
used in case of spill, leak or major accident.
-------
~
H I
IN ssii
• —
Hi II
!!
i iS lUi
! IP "!'I!
TaieiilO;!.
n M P li li M
hi i in M
•I! •
•• i =»
Hazard Management (continued)
J.
JIB
II I ! II
li! is
lili li
•
I'll
I I!
ifii
•Sii ii:' II
Potential Negatire Impacts
Mitigating Measures
Mil
II! S|
|
iiiN
j li (Indirect
! ''S 10 •
isa;
iii ill lil
IMS!
• K
yn i
^»!
91
a ;
Occupational health effects on workers due to fugitive dust,
materials handling, noise, or other process operations.
Accidents occur at higher than normal frequency because of level
of skill or labor.
Regional solid waste problem exacerbated by inadequate on-site
storage or lack of ultimate disposal facilities.
f 12. Transit patterns disrupted, noise and congestion created, and
= pedestrian hazards aggravated by heavy trucks transporting raw
'» I materials to/from facility.
i;
,s '
c ;
li-
10. • Facility should implement a Safety and Health Program designed
. :«'!
to: :*-
• identify, evaluate, monitor, and control health hazards j f:-,
• provide safety training ' -^'
*
11. • Plan for adequate on-site disposal areas assuming screening fbr;ij ,
hazardous characteristics of the leachate is known.
•'. i SI!
• Provide, in design phase, for adequate ultimate disposal facilities. s| j
12. • Site selection can mitigate some of these problems. : :
i lft=: ;
• Special transportation sector studies should be prepared during
project feasibility to select best routes to reduce impacts. ; gjj j
• Transporter regulation and development of emergency contingency Jh
plans to minimize risk of accidents.
II!'
lt!
IHl
m
M
nil
S i
- - (;, ^ l^ I =
4141
IJ
J! i«
IBs • :I
-------
Table 10.2. Electric Power Transmission Systems
Potential Negative Impacts
Mitigating Measures
Direct
1. Vegetation damage, habitat loss, and invasion by exotic species along
the ROW and access roads and around substation sites.
1. • Utilize appropriate clearing techniques, (e.g., hand clearing versus
mechanized clearing).
• Maintain native ground cover beneath lines.
• Replant disturbed sites.
• Manage ROWs to maximize wildlife benefits.
U)
vb
U)
2. Habitat fragmentation or disturbance.
2. • Select ROW to avoid important natural areas such as wildlands and
sensitive habitats.
• Maintain habitat (i.e., native vegetation) beneath lines.
• Make provisions to avoid interfering with natural fire regimes.
3. Increased access to wildlands.
3. • Select ROW to avoid sensitive wildlands.
• Develop protection and management plans for these areas.
• Use discontinuous maintenance roads.
4. Runoff and sedimentation from grading for access roads, tower pads,
and substation facilities, and alteration of hydrological patterns due to
maintenance roads.
4. • Select ROW to avoid impacts to water bodies, floodplains, and
wetlands.
• Install sediment traps or screens to control runoff and
sedimentation.
• Minimize use of fill dirt.
• Use ample culverts.
• Design drainage ditches to avoid affecting nearby lands.
-------
11
I
ii
BS - - c
? sa ,.? s
I
III
Ii H8
1| iBiiS1!; ' '5 " ! Ii t\ "1
ii ll (I | M i!
i fcll IB- ,. JH I. i •! «l •- '-
hMili!): : *
i r . r
'•'
. ..•:
ill i,;!
ffl!
ill!!
ii
*;
±LS = -Its it -
--]«= C - TJ-T: ff T =•
r-=- = :A--^/ 1
"V- e -—^^-^g.
t nil i
i
I !»i iiii : 'W\m
ilH MI! Mil S
«H •:
IN
•.:.•-.'£. si :
» 11iii •':' » ;^:r :|'! R "r :
i ;r*« ill! !n!r i:!M§ ?!
liMil; il !
i i
ill
ill
ial Negative Impacts
Measures
Direct (continued)
II
OJ
ON
S. Loss of land use and population relocation due to placement of towers
and substations.
6. Chemical contamination from chemical maintenance techniques.
Select ROW to avoid important social, agricultural, and cultural
resources.
Utilize alternative tower designs to reduce ROW width requirements
and minimize land use impacts.
Adjust the length of the span to avoid site-specific tower pad
impacts.
Manage resettlement in accordance with Bank procedures.
Utilize mechanical clearing techniques, grazing and/or selective
chemical applications.
Select herbicides with minimal undesired effects.
Do not apply herbicides with broadcast aerial spraying.
Maintain naturally low-growing vegetation along ROW.
7. Avian hazards from transmission lines and towers.
Select ROW to avoid important bird habitats and flight routes.
Install towers and lines to minimize risk for avian hazards.
Install deflectors on lines in areas with potential for bird collisions.
8. Aircraft hazards from transmission lines and towers.
Select ROW to avoid airport flight paths.
Install markers to minimize risk of low-flying aircraft.
9. Induced effects from electromagnetic fields.
9. • Select ROW to avoid areas of human activity.
il
-------
Table 10.2. Electric Power Transmission Systems (continued)
Potential Negative Impacts
Mitigating Measures
Direct (continued)
10. Impaired cultural or aesthetic resources because of visual impacts.
Indirect
1. Induced secondary development during construction in the surrounding
area.
2. Increased access to wildlands.
10. • Select ROW to avoid sensitive areas, including tourist sites and
vistas.
• Construct visual buffers.
• Select appropriate support structure design, materials, and finishes.
• Use lower voltage, DC system, or underground cable to reduce or
eliminate visual impacts of lines, structures, and ROWs.
1. • Provide comprehensive plans for handling induced development.
• Construct facilities to reduce demand.
• Provide technical assistance in land use planning and control to
local governments.
2. • Route ROW away from wildlands.
• Provide access control.
-------
-jii
I! I!
I!)
'!!:
Ifii
i
« !
\t\ Ml
si M!
lilin:
i;
I
pr
iili
* ~~
Hi:
Table 10.3. Oil and Gas Pipelines
Potential Negative Impacts
Mitigating Measures
ii.
Direct
1. Resuspeosion of toxic sediments from construction of offshore
pipelines.
2. Interference with fishing activities from offshore and nearshore
pipelines.
3. Habitat and organism loss along offshore and upland pipeline ROWs
and pumping and compressor station sites, and increased access to
wildlands.
4. Erosion, runoff, and sedimentation from construction of pipeline,
grading for access roads and substation facilities.
5. Alteration of hydrological patterns.
1. •
2. •
•
3. •
4. •
5. •
•
•
Select alternate location for laying pipeline.
Use alternative pipeline construction techniques to minimize
resuspension of sediments (e.g., laying pipeline versus burying
pipeline).
Lay pipeline at a period of minimal circulation.
Select pipeline route away from known fishing areas.
Mark and map location of offshore pipelines.
Bury pipeline that must be located in critical fishing areas.
Select ROW to avoid important natural resource areas.
Utilize appropriate clearing techniques (e.g., hand clearing versus
mechanized clearing) along upland ROWs to maintain native
vegetation near pipeline.
Replant disturbed sites.
Use alternative construction techniques (see No. 1).
Select ROW to avoid impacts to water bodies and hilly areas.
Install sediment traps or screens to control runoff and
sedimentation.
Use alternative pipeline laying techniques that minimizes impacts.
Stabilize soils mechanically or chemically to reduce erosion
potential.
Select ROW to avoid wetlands and flood plains.
Minimize use of fill.
Design drainage to avoid affecting nearby lands.
In
i
-------
Table 10.3. Oil and Gas Pipelines (continued)
Potential Negative Impacts
Mitigating Measures
Direct (continued)
u>
k>
6. Evasion of exotic species and habitat fragmentation.
7. Loss of land use due to placement of upland pipeline and substations.
6.
8. Creation of barriers for human and wildlife movement.
9. Increased traffic due to construction.
i
10. Chemical contamination from wastes and accidental oil spills.
11. Hazards from gas pipeline leakage or rupture.
7. •
8.
9. •
10.
11.
Select corridor and ROW to avoid important wildlands and
sensitive habitats.
Maintain native ground cover (vegetation) above pipeline.
Make provisions to avoid interfering with natural fire regimes.
Select ROW to avoid important social (including agricultural) and
cultural land uses.
Design construction to reduce ROW requirements.
Minimize offsite land use impacts during construction.
For buried pipelines, restore disturbed land along ROW.
Select ROW to avoid travel routes and wildlife corridors.
Elevate or bury pipeline to allow for movement.
Phase construction activities to control traffic.
Construct alternative traffic routes.
Develop waste and spill prevention and cleanup plans.
Utilize spill containment techniques.
Clean up and restore affected areas.
Clearly mark locations of buried pipelines in high-use areas.
Develop emergency evacuation plans and procedures.
Monitor for leaks.
Install alarms to notify the public of accidents.
-------
i ii*^ji^
iSIi
ii
......
l« 1 ! SSi! i: ':" ;•!=
=^ it l i =^ :|^ ;* ^-- J - - -. " s = : i isi; =
i iil:i
nisi :l! SiH INS i II1III! !
!! II IlIIli
,a , =,:
is;: t ; ,;;i! IN s
-5"! s 'lr ;1"
!i
III I I HI MM II
I
i I! ijiiii I N:
! ii i i*\>ti_:i i-:
- I, *- T-^ ^ = =
i«w
I !
! !«:;:: : ! : iTaMelOOT!OiIand:Gas;todte(coriUiti«^ u -1' ;Hi
.^ ,- = : ?» =t- ^=^ ih- s t- *--- ?u --.= i 1= I iH= = Mi i - * . I ==I . == * > *T '. - I' IF -
=--.; : ,si Hi msiM!!,;: ; , ::;• = i .. '.M ;:«M,:,,« :
v: ^ •• -- «=-->™ :" — I :IBS: , , ; iiii ! ' SS! ; P M B '- 1 \ i i«!i ;> i ' r ;
in
Bi 1
•i r
Si !
ii
Miii I
![!• jig i
i
j rf 5r: ^W£ i
i**
11
i»!!ii-
w«•*>»
Potential Negative Impacts
Mitigating Measures
Induced secondary development during construction in the surrounding
area.
Increased access to wildlands.
1. • Develop comprehensive plan for location of secondary developments;:
• Construct facilities and provide financial support to existing!;
infrastructure. ;:
2. • Develop protection and management plans for these areas. .1
• Construction barriers (e.g., fences) to prohibit access to sensitive!
wildlands. *
:
I
i ;"33i iai^iX" .
:
u:,^-'
:
I
i
'"!?
J, :
i
:
i
;
:
;
!
!
i
I' I i *=B
i; j , I (,
m
m
-------
Table 10.4. Checklist-Offshore Oil and Gas Development
1. Production
• Field: Size, depth, area, itructure, oil/gas/water ratios, oil type, ga« type($), pressures.
• Operations: Site preparation, welt spacing, itart-up period (production rate, field life, sanitary wastes), pollution control, monitoring, oil spill
and hydrogen sulfide contingency plans.
• Air Emissions: Emission quantity and, where applicable, composition: venting, flaring, equipment emissions, evaporation from oil spills and
leakage.
• Waste Discharge: Projected quantity and composition; treatment/disposal method (productionwater, sanitary wastes, drilling muds and cuttings,
oil spill and leakage).
• Landuse: Area of field, port facilities, pipelines.
• Equipment: Type and number of drilling and production platforms and ancillary units, transport of supplies and workers.
• Supplies: Drilling muds, pipe, chemicals, water, fuel.
* Starling: Number and skills, source, housing plans.
2. Environmental Resources
• Geology: Stratigraphy, structure, fracture patterns, aquifers (depth, thickness and quality, esp. if near shore), bottom character, geologic
hazards, seismic history.
• Oceanography: Water depths, temperature, mixing, tides and currents, bottom sediments, organic material, particulates, nutrients, salinity,
contaminants.
* Biological: Coastal habitats (coastal barriers, wetlands, bays, lagoora, estuaries, marshes, mangrove swamps, seagrasses); offshore habitats
(shelf, banks, slope, deep sea, reefs); substrate, biota, communities, resident and casual populations, rare or significant species, significant
habitat.
• Climate: Precipitation patterns (amount, frequency, type), air quality, wind and storm patterns (direction, speed, frequency), temperature,
climatic zone.
3. Socio-Economic Factors
• Nearby communities: Location, access, population (number, demographic and social characteristics); economy (employment rate, income
distribution, tax base); services (types, capacity, adequacy) and housing; concern is the ability to (a) provide workforce, (b) service new
development and (c) absorb and adjust to growth (worker/family in-migration).
• Land Use: Intensive and casual, full time and seasonal, actual and projected, specially designated areas (marine sanctuaries, coral reefs,
recreational beaches or seashores, parks, refuges, reservations, wilderness), man-made features.
• Cultural: Historic sites, archaeologic sites, native religious or harvest sites, ship wrecks.
4. Regulatory Framework
• Applicable environmental laws, regulations, policies, standards, and requirements; monitoring and enforcement: air, water, waste, noise,
reclamation, land use controls and approvals, cultural and historic resource protection.
• Designation and protection of special areas and resources: parks, refuges, wilderness, sensitive ecological communities, threatened species of
flora and fauna, native communities (including religious sites and harvesting/hunting or subsistence areas).
• Authority/willingness to require special mitigation: community assistance, staged or phased development, isolate development workforce, pre-
and post-development studies and monitoring (with corrective action in needed), worker training, mass transit of workforce.
3.2-101
-------
^ffl^
-v^iti-
jd*'i'
NJ
*—»
s
Mi'
s s = =
• s —
1=1 =
[511
Table 10.5. Oil and Gas Development-Onshore
Hi I 111 Ji
si;;;;: •' '
Potential Negative Impacts
Mitigating Measures
•Direct
1, Disturbance of cultural resources, benthic communities, coral reefs,
i coastal barriers, wetlands, pipelines and cables (e.g., anchor dragging,
; bottom sampling, pipeline trenching, drill ship positioning, platform
! siting, and so forth).
2. Degradation of coastal and offshore waters by discharges during routine
operations (e.g., drilling muds, sanitary waters, production waters, and
spills).
il I
1. • Require appropriate resource surveys of the offshore and coastal Si; jj
areas that may be affected by the project prior to any disturbance, jh u
Typically this will include: i!;1"
• an inventory of cultural and historic resources in ;
• an inventory of the flora and fauna of the region Si;;
• identification of significant topographic features ; i;;
• an inventory of existing offshore pipelines and cables ,!!;
• Mitigation measures based on identified resource conflicts may ,;
include: :::!
:ss- j
nil;
• avoidance ; :
• timing of operations ;j,
• recovering and archiving cultural and historic resources ;!j
ii
2. • Require separation of cuttings from drilling mud and washing before ;""'
discharge. sji i
;:!! :
• Disposal of drilling muds onshore. : ;^
Si;
* Treatment of formation waters, sanitary and domestic wastes, and ! >
cleaning waters/solvents to meet water quality standards before j,,
discharge. 'T
• Gutters and drip pans, especially at transfer points, to control
platform spills.
-------
Table 10.5. Oil and Gas Development-Offshore (continued)
Potential Negative Impacts
Mitigating Measures
Direct (continued)
u>
3. Degradation of air quality from routine operational emissions (e.g.,
combustion, venting, spills).
4. Mortality and/or reduced reproduction of benthic organisms, coral
communities, and other marine life through smothering (e.g., disturbed
bottom sediments, drill muds, cuttings).
5. Mortality and/or reduced reproduction of marine flora and fauna,
waterfowl, sea birds and waterfowl through oil coating resulting from
oil spills.
Water quality standards should be established for all waste water
discharges.
Drill cuttings checked for residual oil before discharge.
Waters in vicinity of platform or drill ship monitored for oil sheen.
Require appropriate pollution control devices installed and operative
on all diesel generators and pumps.
Require hydrocarbon vapor control at all oil or gas transfer points,
and prompt cleanup of any oil spills.
Minimize venting during production.
Prohibit or restrict bottom-disturbing activities in vicinity of
significant coral reefs and benthic communities.
Discharged drill cuttings should be shunted to avoid these features.
Spent drilling muds should be barge to shore or discharged well
away from any significant live bottom communities.
Minimize routine oil spillage through adherence to water quality,
discharge standards, and good housekeeping practices on drill ships,
platforms, shuttle boats, barges and tankers, and at transfer points.
-------
HI!!!
ii asii,
S:
1 I
Table 10.5. 01 and Gas Development-Offshore (continued)
I!
nBj^=€«
Potential Negative Impacts
Mitigating Measures
Direct (continued)
u>
v>
6. Disturbance of marine mammals by seismic surveys, drilling and ship
noises.
7. Degradation of beach areas, coastal facilities, and boats by oil spills and
littering (e.g., coating, tar balls, trash and debris from offshore
facilities and transport).
8. Obstruction of boat traffic by offshore facilities.
9. Loss or reduction of fishing areas and recreation sites.
10. Degradation of sea-ward vista (by siting of drilling ships and
platforms).
• Prompt detection and effective response to any operational orj
catastrophic spills. j
• Provision for treatment facilities for any oiled birds or aquatic;
mammals.
i
i
6. Prohibit use of explosives during presence of sensitive marine'
mammals. *
7. • Solid waste disposal requirements, including sanitary and domestic
wastes.
• Require labeling of all loose materials and equipment on vessels and S
platforms (especially barrels, boxes, etc.). 5
i
8. Do not site platforms in established shipping lanes. S
B
9. Do not site platforms in significant fishing or water-oriented recreation 4
areas. i
%
i
10. • Paint structures to blend with background (water and sky). :
Camouflage structures (however, reducing the visibility of drill
ships or platforms may increase navigation hazards).
Use subsurface or bottom production units where feasible.
-------
Table 10.5. Oil and Gas Development-Offshore (continued)
Potential Negative Impacts
Mitigating Measures
Direct (continued)
11. Congestion and increased boating accidents in the coastal (from
increased ship traffic).
12. Disturbance to humans and wildlife by increased noise levels in coastal
area from aircraft overflights, ship traffic, and facility operations.
OJ 13. Loss of beach areas to pipeline landfalls and support facilities (e.g.,
to land use, impact of spill cleanup activities, use of dispersants, traffic,
>-• disturbance from cleaning activities, and soil contamination).
14. Injury/loss of life from accidents in transportation and facility
operations.
11. • Establish and publicize sea-lanes for shuttle traffic.
• When possible, avoid areas of heavy recreational or fishing boat
use.
12. Minimize overflights of populated areas.
13. Avoid heavily-used recreational beaches.
14. • Periodic training and continual safety reminders to all operating
staff.
• Require periodic drills in emergency procedures.
• Ensure that all visitors are briefed on potential hazards and
necessary safety precautions.
• Ensure that appropriate safety and rescue equipment is available
and employees trained in its use.
• Install safety valves and alarms in subsurgace well-completion
systems, with monitoring at production platforms and onshore
location.
-------
SB
I.
IF «
*
il
'"IHn
! I
ill'
r~. • :t' I
"ill Mill
i
i |= ; • i | i i i i i
i! >! ;-
« if ti I
I!! IsM i'il
i : ;
!'
• L« ?l V ; ,
•ill
i^r= -:=£:
K. fi!m
: a feh
: a m
i! * =.«
HI
Table 10.5. Oil and Gas DereJopoiait-OfTshorc (confinued) i
illii! !
!ii ill
i
= ,, =,, - -ujn
s ;J ; ^j :
1
a *:,«:[ \l?* >,j
\
\
!
Hi1
I
: ;_ : ( i
!ii IT
I!
Potential Negative Impacts
Mitigating Measures
(continued)
15. Contamination of groundwater aquifers (e.g., wells).
15. • Require proper drilling practices, casing, and sealing off all
aquifers during drilling.
u> 16. Increased demands on community facilities and services in the coastal
area.
°
;!
i " '
f :
• Ensure that all aquifers are properly sealed off prior to well
completion or abandonment.
16. • Require pre-development, socio-economic studies of potentially
affected communities to identify possible impacts on services,
infrastructure, dislocations, and conflicts.
• These impacts can be addressed by:
• community assistance grants
• loans
• pre-payment of taxes
• phasing the oil and gas development
• constructing needed community facilities
• Cooperative and open working relations should be established early
with local communities and maintained throughout the life of the
project.
• Project workers should be encouraged to participate in community
affairs.
lip
-------
Table 10.5. Oil and Gas Development-Offshore (continued)
Potential Negative Impacts
Mitigating Measures
Direct (continued)
17. Conflicts with native cultures, traditions, and life-styles.
t—*
o
17. • Brief all employees to ensure awareness of and sensitivity to the
local cultures, traditions, and lifestyles.
• Ensure that native leaders are aware of the projected activities, are
assisted in identifying impacts that may be of particular concern to
them, and have a voice in appropriate mitigation measures.
• Mitigation may include isolating the development work force from
the native community.
-------
Ill J'll
III lilt
•niiiiiih' n ii
ilillli Kiunt
Table 10.6. Checklist-Onshore Oil and Gas Development
Production Zone(s): Reserves, depth, area, structure, oil/gas/water ratios, oil type, gas type(s), pressures.
Operations: Site preparation, well spacing, start-up period (production rate, product transportation, field life, waste sanitary wastes), pollution
control, monitoring, spill response and reclamation plans.
Air Emissions: Emission quantity and, where applicable, composition: dust, venting, flaring, waste pit burning, combustion, equipment
emiuions, oil spills and leakage.
Waste Water Discharge: Projected quantity and composition; treatment/disposal method (production water, sanitary wastes).
Services: Utilities (type, source, load), roads, airfields, rail, fire protection, security.
Landuse: Area of field, transportation and utility routes, pipelines, buildings and structures (at field and stations along pipeline).
Equipment: Type and number for site preparation, drilling, production, transportation, waste water separations and disposal, waste haulage
pumping, reclamation, transport of supplies and workers.
Supplies! Drilling muds, pipe, chemicals, water, fuel.
Staffing: Construction, production, reclamation phases, number and skills, source, housing plans.
Resources
Geology: Stratigraphy, structure, fracture patterns, seismic history.
Crouadwater: Depth to and thickness of aquifers, quality and quantity, hydraulics, recharge, uses.
Surface Water: Quality, quantity, seasonal variations, uses.
mini HI in in limn iiiiiiiii in ill i liii liii in in i iiiiii i i in i i n
Soil: Soil profile (depth, type, characteristics).
iilli!j!lll!"il"'|i|ill 'tt'nl ilii'mn HI!,! U|i|i|ii;1ri 'liiijipllir'i'ii Illiiii ' ,||'"liflli n.I''I'HIIP1' Illllliii IJI| >' Illr lif-Hii'rl'Jil mill!1'
-------
Table 10.7. Oil and Gas Development-Onshore (continued)
Potential Negative Impacts
Mitigating Measures
OJ
to
I-—*
o
VO
Direct (continued)
3. Degradation of air quality from routine operational emissions.
4. Mortality and Sliced reproduction of wildlife from habitat disturbance
or loss, road lolls, and hunting.
5. Modification of vegetation and introduction of non-native species.
• Treatment of sanitary/domestic wastes and cleaning waters/solvents.
to meet water quality standards before discharge.
• Prompt cleanup of any spills (oil, drilling mud, formation water).
• Water quality standards should be established for all waste water
discharges.
3. • Require appropriate pollution control devices on diesel generators and
pumps, and hydrocarbon vapor control at all oil or gas transfer
points.
• Require prompt cleanup of any oil spills.
• Minimize venting during production.
4. • Prohibit or restrict disturbance of significant habitat and wetlands.
• Mark wildlife road crossings.
• Prohibit firearms possession in the area.
5. Require prompt reclamation of disturbed areas and revegetation with
native species.
-------
ill! I
"it l
I
Table 10.7. Oil and Gas Development-Onshore
rj-^sf -- - -
siNftf
=7__' ^-__-= -H»E- I :
!*;:-M>»
-------
Table 10.7. Oil and Gas Development-Onshore (continued)
Potential Negative Impacts
Mitigating Measures
OJ
k>
Direct (continued)
6. Degradation/loss of vegetation (and soil productivity) from discharge or
spills of produced waters, oil, and drilling muds.
7. Land-use conflicts.
9. Road damage, accidents, and traffic delays from increased truck traffic
on local roads.
6. • Require blow-out preventers and control and prompt cleanup of oil
and formation water spillage.
• Keep soil disturbance and vegetation clearing to minimum required for
operation and safety.
7. • Consult with local land users in siting access, air fields, utility lines,
and, to extent possible, production facilities.
• Allow other land uses to continue on the site where compatible with
the operations.
8. « Access remote areas by air during early exploration stage.
• Restrict use of access roads.
• Remove and reclaim any access roads at end of production.
• Minimize need for community development by rotating work crews
and precluding permanent residence.
9. • Observe road load limits.
• Design roads for adequate capacity and visibility.
• Ensure that roads are properly signed, vehicles are well-maintained,
and drivers are trained and safety-conscious.
• Require that commuting workers car-pool or provide buses.
-------
ii
I ! fir ?=„ •
""
;
» ; afts ™= f
! i
_n,,i,i,;e™ * , „», —s I
*!"^ = ^-yi
r; • " -; _•.:__:. 'r1 1
; I
i
J
!
-
if !;!^- 'ijs'iS 1C
_ 'I * I ' ! H 3F
; ^; i Tite 10.7. Oil and Gas Deveiopment-Onshore (continued)
i ii ;
,i! ,r \s j! ,B§ ;' « i «
III
-111
ft a
II
Potential Negative Impacts
Mitigating Measures
Ill
it
Ih
!H
: K Direct (continued)
- -ijt ==p=
« ii£: 10. • Visual intrusions from wells, tanks, and production facilities.
c ! i*'
7s>r -.-- !M|i-;s
L |i*i iS: • Cleared linear rights-of-way for pipelines, utilities, and roads, and
w,h -,,f .^M- processing facilities.
-i S
!!
:£~£.&-* -Hi^l
.---•- « ; :<«[« ll:
:=^sj ^ : ^i*« Jt
;]7 ^ 11. Disturbance of humans and wildlife by noise from seismic surveys,
'!«!: i»ia SB Jy drilling, pumping, and processing facilities.
it if a—* —j
IJjH I
if- ,,n, ,---
ft; >
H
s ; r
1* '"*" s f j» Loss of birds and animals in sludge ponds.
Ill:
ii
1!
liii
-
^il^tSl ,»!ifi
||||| -|R1
fii i
f
i ._....
!SS
i==. - 5s = _- i, !| ^JE a^
^rr =-;_- «=-:;? ?*
^ J^H1
I
-III
lilii
ijpl
i Si
i jjj 13. Injury/loss of life from accidents.
10. • Paint structures to blend with background (vegetation and sky).
• Avoid contrasting colors.
• Utilize utility corridors.
• Minimize clearing and blend vegetation where feasible.
11. • Avoid seismic shots, low overflights, and other sudden loud noises
in critical wildlife areas, especially during mating or nesting season.
• Require proper mufflers on diesel equipment.
12. • Minimize surface area and number of sludge pits, and require that
they be promptly drained, closed, or covered (with netting) when not
in use.
13. • Periodic training and continual safety reminders to all operating staff.
• Require periodic drills in emergency procedures.
• Ensure that all visitors are briefed on potential hazards and necessary
safety precautions.
• Ensure that appropriate safety and rescue equipment is available and
employees trained in its use.
• Install subsurface safety valves on gas producing wells.
•iii
-------
Table 10.7. Oil and Gas Development-Onshore (continued)
Potential Negative Impacts
Mitigating Measures
Direct (continued)
14. Contamination of groundwater aquifers.
OJ
to 15. Increased demands on services and facilities in local communities,
>— social and cultural conflicts, concern with community stability (boom
u> and bust scenario).
14. • Require proper drilling practices, casing and sealing off all aquifers
during drilling.
• Ensure that all aquifers are properly sealed off prior to well
completion or abandonment.
• Line all mud storage and waste fluid pits.
IS. • Require pre-development, socio-economic study of potentially
affected communities to identify possible impacts on services,
infrastructure, dislocations, and conflicts.
• These impacts can be addressed by:
• community assistance grants
• loans
• pre-payment of taxes
• phasing the oil and gas development
• constructing needed community facilities
• Cooperative and open working relations should be established early
with local communities and maintained throughout the life of the
project.
• Project workers should be encouraged to participate in community
affairs.
-------
i
I Hi E
III Mi I!
(i ' ai:13(i '"< ' 1.', ''
• i tet i>? 1! !• ; Ii; ||> «
iiiiiill
i MI
: HII
imp i;
II
s
hi,,: |5- :,V|!=:
• i* 'flis *; i'-i\-.-
,- = ,,^ff ;
| \ i-gjj: <| jj
Table 10.7. Oil and Gas Development-Onshore (continued) !I!B I
1 I :
Hl«I S ::: =-: : h
III L
: i! ! :.
•ill
*? ; );ih_, , •
i;ii!
E5 _ ~=i^iL-T ~ - - I ill I
Potential Negative Impacts
i"
;;s
K, i t'-fii ,f, ::i
f 3,:~~-, „;« I ;
«*
a ; si V-" f.
si
B I
: i!!K' !!S
• I i!>
£ i ^K* ^ L:
I1?
J
Direct (continued)
!
i 16. Conflicts with native cultures, traditions, and life-styles.
17. Subsidence of land surface.
18. Use of local surface water or groundwater.
liiiiili iiii!
Mitigating Measures
16. • Brief all employees to ensure awareness of and sensitivity to the local
cultures, traditions, and lifestyles. :
• Ensure that native leaders are aware of the projected activities, are
assisted in identifying impacts that may be of particular concern to
them, and have a voice in appropriate mitigation measures.
• Mitigation may include isolating the development work force from
the native community.
17. Re-injection of produced formation water and injection of additional
water to replace volume of oil removed.
18. • Obtain water from unutilized aquifers.
• Non-potable water can be used for drilling, sprinkling roads, and
irrigating.
jl
-------
Table 10.8. Hydroelectric Projects
Potential Negative Impacts
Mitigating Measures
u>
to
Direct
1. • Negative environmental effects of construction:
• air and water pollution from construction and waste disposal
• soil erosion
• destruction of vegetation
• sanitary and health problems from construction camps
2. Dislocation of people living in inundation zone.
3. Loss of land (agricultural, forest, range, wetlands) by inundation to form
reservoir.
4. Loss of historic, cultural or aesthetic features by inundation.
1. • Measures to minimize impacts:
• air and water pollution control
• careful location of camps, buildings, borrow pits, quarries, spoil
and disposal sites
• precautions to minimize erosion
• land reclamation
2. • Relocation of people to suitable area.
• Provision of compensation in kind for resources lost.
• Provision of adequate health services, infrastructure, and employment
opportunities.
3. • Siting of dam to decrease losses.
• Decrease of dam and reservoir size.
• Protection of equal areas in region to offset losses.
• Creation of useable land in previously unsuitable areas to offset
4. • Siting of dam or decrease of reservoir size to avoid loss.
• Salvage or protection of cultural properties.
-------
Hi I
III
" 'm > i!
:?!i
i
I fit
'•- i«;,"
- - rjt:i ~s ^?
-
II
i i
i
s :
r; .!• *,--. ^ss^;
*; &i
I
!
:;IM;P i!i! !!fl s : •
•: i;isi u ! S
Table 10.8. Hydroelectric Projects; j j;
jl! !
:i;I
Ii
Potential Negative Impacts
Mitigating Measures
Direct (continued)
5. Loss of wildlands and wildlife habitat.
MSI • :, MIS
tj. it j,:;;* a .
"-?£ =
Ht9' *
tit! £ ,
jij;::;^jr;
:= - ==>T h
5l I
, -
H
6. Proliferation of aquatic weeds in reservoir and downstream impairing
I;1! dam discharge, irrigation systems, navigation and fisheries and
;;^ increasing water loss through transpiration.
liiki
ill 7. Deterioration of water quality in reservoir.
5. •
Siting of dam or decrease of reservoir size to avoid/minimize loss.!
Establishment of compensatory parks or reserved areas. j
Animal rescue and relocation. :
6.
7. •
Clearance of woody vegetation from inundation zone prior to
flooding (nutrient removal).
Weed control measures.
Harvest of weeds for compost, fodder or biogas.
Regulation of water discharge and manipulation of water levels to
discourage weed growth.
Clearance of woody vegetation from inundation zone prior to
flooding.
Control of land uses, wastewater discharges, and agricultural
chemical use in watershed.
Limit retention time of water in reservoir.
Provision for multi-level releases to avoid discharge of anoxic water.
-------
Table 10.8. Hydroelectric Projects (continued)
Potential Negative Impacts
Mitigating Measures
to
t—*
>—*
o
Direct (continued)
8. Sedimentation of reservoir and loss of storage capacity.
9. Formation of sediment deposits at reservoir entrance creating backwater
effect and flooding and waterlogging upstream.
10. Scouring of riverbed below dam.
8. • Control of land use in watershed (especially prevention of
conversion of forests to agriculture).
• Reforestation and/or soil conservation activities in watersheds
(limited affect).
• Hydraulic removal of sediments (flushing, sluicing, release of
density currents).
• Operation of reservoir to minimize sedimentation (entails loss of
power benefits).
9. Sediment flushing, sluicing.
10. Design of trap efficiency and sediment release (e.g., sediment flushing,
sluicing) to increase salt content of released water.
11. pecrease in floodplain (recession) agriculture.
12. Salinization of floodplain lands.
13. Salt water intrusion in estuary and upstream.
11. Regulation of dam releases to partially replicate natural flooding
regime.
12. Regulation of flow to minimize effect.
13. Maintenance of at least minimum flow to prevent intrusion.
-------
it il
K j'*™
| il !>i- _ r -•-!•--=. : ;
i*! |T 11
I«; !; i ---
liiiM
3~~ j ,
I!I I
fa ,'- , , • J jit jSKlJi i ,,
!l
il, it 11 1
111!
I i
1 ' ;
Ifk." U .^1= - i ' ^-Jli^ -
;|!y
ffill 1!
Potential Negative Impacts
Mitigating Measures
11 Direct (continued)
^ ! • i
I i 14. Disruption of riverine fisheries due to changes in flow, blocking of fish
| i^; | j i _', \ migration, and changes in water quality and limnology.
= ;S V ' 'j
i Ji B t
iSi il ^lil i ii
•i: I i •: 15. Snagging of fishing nets in submerged vegetation in reservoir.
W i; i|
Iti: J^ *fe n- 16. Increase of water-related diseases.
i • ;j; j; ;i!3y|0o, ={j
S1 *' <:;^! ! [
|i Ij i •
||i j| jniji |I 17. Conflicting demands for water use.
11|! |l I'M :i
iiii l! -iiSII ii.. *
HHi t
j! SIj ;! 18. Social disruption and decrease in standard of living of resettled people.
!»'r -: ---,-
M-o: w- ..,;•
i jfc: i l;i:;.
ife si \m
iBi »» !i»ii
i* 3! >!T"
111! i1 A
il= ^ ;i^! i^^
14. • Maintenance of at least minimum flow for fisheries.
• Provision of fish ladders and other means of passage.
• Protection of spawning grounds.
• Aquaculture and development of reservoir fisheries in compensation.
IS. Selective clearance of vegetation before flooding.
16. • Design and operation of dam to decrease habitat for vector.
• Vector control.
• Disease prophylaxis and treatment.
17. • Planning and management of dam in context of regional
development plans.
• Equitable allocations of water between large and small holders and
between geographic regions of valley.
18.* Maintenance of standard of living by ensuring access to resources at
least equalling those lost.
• Provision of health and social services.
-------
Table 10.8. Hydroelectric Projects (continued)
Potential Negative Impacts
Mitigating Measures
Direct (continued)
19. Environmental degradation from increased pressure on land.
20. Disruption/destruction of tribal/indigenous groups.
21. Increase in humidity and fog locally, creating favorable habitat for
insect disease vectors (mosquitos, tsetse).
19. • Choice of resettlement site to avoid surpassing carrying capacity of
the land.
• Increase of productivity or improve management of land (agri-
cultural, range, forestry improvements) to accommodate higher
population.
20. Avoid dislocation of unacculturated people and where not possible,
relocate in area allowing them to retain lifestyle and customs.
21. Vector control.
Indirect
22. Uncontrolled migration of people into the area made possible by access
roads and transmission lines.
23.'Environmental problems arising from development made possible by
dam (irrigated agriculture, industries, municipal growth).
22. Limitation of access, provision of rural development, and health
services to try to minimize impact.
23. Basin-wide integrated planning to avoid overuse, misuse, and con-
flicting uses of water and land resources.
External
24. Poor land use practices in catchment areas above reservoir resulting in
increased siltation and changes in water quality.
24. Land use planning efforts which include watershed areas above dam.
-------
!•" irni
ills
Iliiiiiil liiiiili
« II1
,
»»• ijp M
n
:
llSd
^f^ r= = -Zs: Jl ^^ -
Bjj
II
; r
- IS
11! i
IN i!ittii:Hii HHiiiiiH
;::! • : ! L *i» V! I fc:! ; vt«> *,: -„:. • I
Ijl I feSi : Is" t ; ^-:i
~'
•» j"j?i K_ _,.
- Ilii
fi=, ^i - Jj;
»-^
!«li
il==r r - n= ^=^f«^s ^' j -=
iilM
1=7" i •- ! a »•«: Si( 2
I
:f»-| = f »j :
IP ; i
i"f"!« • <
•
11! II!
\m Hi
I!
Table 10.9. Themodectric Projects
II
I IS
B» (M i
IS I" !
fl =M 5
!;
!
*
• '
i
=
III
Potential Negatirc Impacts
Mitigating Measures
i=-s =, ^ ^ = =_- - - - i ::
UK
t«f
11 i
Hi
^&: T -1= i r, = = :
I!-
II1. Air emission effects to human health, agriculture,
;: "'^'v :; and vegetation.
and native wildlife
||
I:is3£?!fi; ! 2. Increased noise and vibration.
I P^ ^- '^^=«i ^ i : =
!*=* i
s|l .;» agLio i : 3. Change in surface water and groundwater quality.
itt ! II
K*1: ,. .iy, !
«a;
",5*^
ifli!
B
4. Toxic effects of chemical discharges and spills.
S. Thermal shock to aquatic organisms.
BHSJ i i;
p ! !!
+^=« =-^, - _ JO J j _ f:
Ijii • i;
13( ! i!
1 liiHp i ll
IH
1JI i
is;
2. •
3. •
Locate facility away from sensitive air quality receptors.
Design higher stacks to reduce ground level concentrations.
Use cleaner fuels (e.g., low sulfur coal).
Install air pollution control equipment.
Use lower rated equipment. ]|;
Control the timing of noise and vibration to least disruptive periods.
Install noise barriers. !>
Treat discharges chemically or mechanically on-site.
Prevent groundwater contamination through use of liners.
Use deep well injection below potable zones.
Construct liners for ponds and solid waste disposal areas.
Dilute effluent at point of discharge.
it,
4. •
5. •
•
Develop spill prevention plans.
Develop traps and containment
discharges on-site.
systems and chemically
treat
|L
Use alternative heat dissipation design (e.g., closed cycle cooling), if;
Dilute thermal condition by discharging water into larger receiving
water body. ^ \ \
Install mechanical diffusers. :>: ;
Cool water on-site in holding pond prior to discharge. ;; :
Explore opportunities to use waste heat. :j|; ;
Mliiiii!
11 ! !!,,,!,
-------
Table 10.9. Thermoelectric Projects (continued)
Potential Negative Impacts
Mitigating Measures
Direct (continued)
U)
N)
i—'
N)
6. Entrainment and impingement of aquatic organisms.
7. Change in surface water and groundwater quantity.
8. Change in surface water flow and discharge.
9. Vegetation removal and habitat loss.
10. Dredging and filling of wetlands.
11. Avian hazards from stacks, towers, and transmission lines.
12. Human population displacement.
13. Disruption of traffic.
6. • Select water intake in area that avoids significant impact.
• Install screens to eliminate entrainment and impingement.
7. • Develop water recycling plan.
8. • Construct drainage ways and holding ponds on-site.
9. • Select alternative site or site layout to avoid loss of ecological
resources.
• Restore or create similar vegetation or habitats.
10. • Select alternative site or site layout to avoid loss of wetlands.
• Restore or create similar wetlands.
11. • Site stacks and tower away from flyways.
• Install deflectors, lights, and other visible features.
12. • Select alternative site or site layout to avoid displacement.
• Involve affected parties in the resettlement planning and program.
• Construct socially and culturally acceptable settlements/infra-
structure development (see "Involuntary Resettlement" section).
13. • Develop traffic plan that includes phasing road use by workers.
• Upgrade roads and intersections.
-------
iii i
Mi P
• !• I
1 HIW Hi
Ill
!!•
fl?
rlil
JJl
H s»
II
I i|||H mi
•Si ill!
IE ".s P? i»3r i
a ;
'« !
J ,~lfc-r.»r(»
; '~' =
"T I i
i i :
Table 10.9.; Thermoelectric Projects (continued);
f!
II
i f
r
Potential Negative Impacts
Mitigating Measures
Direct (continued)
14. Modification of historically or archaeologically significant structures
or lands (e.g., churches, temples, mosques, cemeteries).
oj IS. Visual impact on historical, archaeological, and cultural resources and
^ on landscapes.
H( I K
16. Worker exposure to dust from ash and coal.
ail
17. Worker exposure to toxic gases leaking from broilers.
18. Worker exposure to excessive noise.
;=1 _
i=*
Mil I
H> •
14. • Select alternative site or site layout.
• Develop and implement "chance find" procedures to recover,
relocate or restore structures (see "Cultural Property" section for
detailed discussion).
• Fence or construct other barriers to protect structures or lands.
IS. • Select alternative site or site layout.
• Construct visual buffers (e.g., plant trees).
16. • Provide dust collector equipment.
• Maintain dust levels :£ 10 mg/m3.
• Monitor for free silica content.
• Provide dust masks when levels are exceeded.
I j
17. • Maintain boilers properly.
• Monitor concentrations with levels not to exceed:
SO2 S ppm
CO 50 ppm
NO2 5 ppm
18. • Maintain noise levels below 90 dBA, or provide ear protection.
_
•
i
-------
Table 10.9. Thermoelectric Projects (continued)
Potential Negative Impacts
Mitigating Measures
Indirect
U)
K)
1. Induced secondary development including increased demands on
infrastructure.
2. Changes in demographic patterns and disruption of social and cultural
values and patterns.
1. • Provide infrastructure plan and financial support for increased
demands.
• Construct facilities to reduce demands.
2. • Develop plan to educate workers on sensitive values and patterns.
• Provide behavioral and/or psychological readjustment programs and
services.
-------
h
Il
•i
-51 r
m
'I
III
ii
SHI Ii!!!
i '! jjy iTablepUUO.
Cement
III
"ii
ii;
I
=£! fi Eif s
Potential Negative Impacts
Mitigating Measures
s „,
Direct: Site Selection
1. Siting of plant on/near sensitive habitats such as mangroves, estuaries,
wetlands, coral reefs.
i
«;«
ss;«Mfe ;
:
^i ^ W i»
!!li
2. Siting along water courses causing their eventual degradation.
N^SHjiiil!^
i
i
3. Siting can cause serious air pollution problems for local area.
4. Siting can aggravate solid waste problems in an area.
,
i
:^ iu» :7r:c.; }
i tPM „ : i = ^ j , j.
i i
::
! r » s i
i t|.i » i
Direct: Plant Operation
5. • Water pollution from discharge of liquid effluents and process
cooling water or runoff from waste piles.
I
1. • Locate plant in industrially zoned area, if possible, to minimize or
concentrate the stress on local environmental services and to facilitate
the monitoring of discharges.
• Integrate site selection process with natural resource agencies to
review alternatives.
2. • Site selection process should examine alternatives that minimize
environmental effects and not preclude beneficial use of the water
body.
• Plants with liquid discharges should only be located on a watercourse
having adequate waste-absorbing capacity.
3. Locate in an area not subject to air inversions or trapping of pollutants,
and where prevailing winds are towards relatively unpopulated areas.
4. • Site selection should evaluate the location according to the following
guidelines:
• plot size sufficient to landfill or dispose on-site
• proximity to suitable disposal site
• convenient for public/private contractors to collect and haul i
solid wastes for final disposal \
5. • Laboratory analyst of liquid effluent should include TDS, TSS,
salts, alkalinity, patassium, sulfates, mid in-situ pH temperature
monitoring.
Ii
-------
Table 10.10. Cement (continued)
Potential Negative Impacts
Mitigating Measures
Direct: Plant Operation (continued)
Plant: Total Suspended Solids (TSS), Total Dissolved Solids
(TDS), temperature, pH
Materials storage piles runoff: TSS, pH
)
>—>
N)
All Plants
• No cooling water discharge. If recycling not feasible, discharge
cooling water provided receiving water temperature does not rise
>3°C.
• No discharge of slurry tank wash or spills.
• Maintain pH level of effluent discharge between 6.0 and 9.0.
Non-Leaching Plants
• TSS <5 g/ton product
• TDS no greater than levels of water incoming to plant
Leaching Plants
• TSS < 150 g/ton product
• TDS < 1.5 kg/ton product
Material Storage Piles
• Minimize rainfall allowed to percolate through piles and runoff in
uncontrolled fashion.
• Line storage areas.
Equipment Washing. Road Washing. Other Washing
• < ISO g/ton product during equipment cleaning operations or during
periods of rainfall.
• Plant housekeeping procedures must reflect desired level of
mitigation.
-------
!•
IP
'
I
I!
i*
II!
!i
il I ' 5 - «
!! i Ij is
"I I ,! f - - -
TaWc 10.10.; Cement (continued)
g. ^
*! 5 Id:
II
HI I ill
"
Potential Negative Impacts
Milignd'ug Measures
= Direct: Plant Operation (continued)
f 6. Parlictilale emissions to the atmosphere from nil plant operations,
= crushing, material handling, kilns, clinker coolers.
to
H~>
to -
7. Pniticulate emission from ground sources (fugitive dust particulates),
roads, piles.
i 8. Kiln gaseous emission of SOX to me atmosphere from fuel burning.
Mill
6. • Control particulates by fabric filter collectors. ' .
• Control kiln particulale emissions by electrostatic prccipitalor dust |
collectors, with moisture conditioning required for dry process I
operations. ,
• Control particulars on dry basis as follows: !
' • from kiln, 150 g/ton feed
• from clinker cooler, 50 g/lon feed
• ground level outside plant fence, 80 /tg/in1
• slack discharge, 100 /(g/ni3
7. • Control measures include:
• road treatment
• water spray on piles
• use of industrial vacuum cleaner
• limit speed to 20 kni/lir
8. • Control by natural scrubbing action of alkaline materials and
enhanced by utilization of preheater kilns, and use of exhaust gases
to dry raw materials in grinding.
• An analysis of raw materials during feasibility stage of project can
determine levels of sulfur to properly design emission control
equipment.
Inside plant fence
• Annual arithmetic mean: 100 /ig/nr1
• Maximum 24 hour peak: 1000 /«g/m'
I) I
ill
• iti
-------
Table 10.10. Cement (continued)
Potential Negative Impacts
Mitigating Measures
Direct: Plant Operation (continued)
9. Kiln gaseous emissions of NO, to the atmosphere from fuel burning.
U)
to 10. Air pollution during start-up of the kiln (and the electrostatic
precipitator is not available).
11. Air pollution as a result of electrostatic malfunction.
Outside plant fence
• Annual arithmetic mean: 100 /tg/m3
• Maximum 24 hour peak:
9. • Reduce NOX by use of coal fuel and preheater/precalciner kilns.
• Use of vegetative material or chemical wastes from other local
industries should be carefully reviewed since these fuels may
increase NOX releases to the atmosphere.
10. Where possible, conduct start-up when wind direction is not directed
to ecologically sensitive or populated areas.
11. • Design precipitator with parallel chambers to enable the use of one
part of the precipitator when the other is under repair.
• Enforce kirn shut-down when precipitator is completely out-of-order.
12. • Burning hazardous wastes or waste oils as supplemental fuels could
emit toxic air pollutants as products of incomplete combustion and
metals such as lead to the atmosphere.
Handling and storage of hazardous
and environment.
community
12. • Although studies have shown that most organic materials are
destroyed at an efficiency of 99.99 percent and metals are adsorbed
to cement dust that is collected by the air pollution control system.
• Care must be exercised to ensure that (a) hazardous waste and waste
oils are analyzed before approval for burning, and (b) kirn operating
efficiency is maintained.
-------
Ml? =f
'
11 »1( I IN i IIM III
!i!l IIII!si ii!j(i
mm i
IIIIIM
I ii Mi!;
:«
i - -- |R- = =JF "™^ = , = - ~_=°IiSi-ifs
i !*t: = ?ii!!;Kai ~°
1H- =,gi.ii| i
S!
!s;:««jg|y Hi j||!!!j! -j
i| B I [i 1
-*.-"; r-r.E'V : :» :« J::^,,, "-•"!: i; B | li .
.--y"! ;i!s=:':::: s ;«;
t>-^i i :
i :• i
i * §
5
i I i I
Mill I! II!
in: HI
I I !
ill
i III!
M ::;: « MiM m
il! 11 B !! «!:!! !«l!k HP (K !;|
I 1
Potential Negative Impacts
Mitigating Measures
Direct: Plant Operation (continued)
U)
00
13. Surface runoff of constituents leached from kiln dust, raw materials,
clinker, coal and other substances frequently stored in piles on the
facility grounds can pollute surface waters or percolate to ground
waters.
Indirect
14. • Occupational health effects on workers due to fugitive dust,
materials handling or other process operations.
• Accidents occur at higher than normal frequency because of level
of skill or labor.
;t j IS. Regional solid waste problem exacerbated by inadequate on-site
- • storage.
:J *
• Add the waste at the "hot" end of the kirn.
• Develop hazardous waste handling procedures and contingency plans
(see "Hazardous Materials Management" section).
13. • Rainwater percolation and runoff from solid materials, fuel and waste
piles can be controlled by covering and/or containment to prevent
percolation and runoff to ground and surface waters.
• Diked areas should be of sufficient size to contain an average 24 hour
rainfall.
14. • Facility should implement a Safety and Health Program designed to:
• identify, evaluate, monitor, and control safety and health hazards
at a specific level of detail
• address the hazards to worker health and safety
• propose procedures for employee protection
• provide safety training
IS. • Plan for adequate on-site disposal areas or use of kiln dust or other
by-products as local fill material, assuming screening for hazardous
characteristics of the leachate is known.
• Use kiln dust for soil liming, neutralizing acid or stabilizing
hazardous waste.
-------
Table 10.10. Cement (continued)
Potential Negative Impacts
Mitigating Measures
OJ
K)
i—i
K)
Indirect (continued)
16. Transit patterns disrupted, noise and congestion created, and pedestrian
hazards aggravated by heavy trucks transporting raw materials, fuel or
cement to/from facility.
17. Mining of limestone locally to provision cement facility can create
conflicts with other industries, such as housing and construction, that
rely on some similar resources and can aggravate erosion/sedimentation
of water courses by uncontrolled or unrestricted operations.
16. • Site selection can mitigate some of these problems.
• Special transportation sector studies should be prepared during
project feasibility to select best routes to reduce impacts.
• Transporter regulation and development of emergency contingency
plans to minimize risk of accidents during transport of waste fuels.
17. • Plan for limestone resource usage to fit availability and impose
restrictions on manner of quarrying.
• Coordination with responsible agency-in-charge to examine site
reclamation options once facility is de-commissioned.
Provide plan for limestone mine restoration.
-------
II
wn i i
MM iiiMi
:: ' m\i
•MB I IH! i ; :; I i H
Ml! I il|11
ill ii i
Illll
!• fir Ml! ill !l i1
IP i! liiiiiiii
I !B= -• BSrs, :,E i : :, : aaa ; i : : i i if i ai g ,
S'SJ ! I li, ill !'
ii iJiiiiiiiii m JEM iii
^
•i s ;i Hi; ift
i! II
111 I I'
1M I N
II
III II
IJ
ill i=
. . A M
Ml
i:
_JT . = * i =l== =M =: = s I = 1 _
i^ J
i^ J
«- sj
~ - 1=
*-- = = a s
!
'=< =
11 ii m
i »•;«
!:ii «S
r*-^ |H
3^
i^.j- s«si
s\^ -is
Jiiiiii
Potential Negative Impacts
Mitigating Measures
i
iill
ill! 1
:-'Si li: Direct: Site Selection
Wfii i
i».
1. Siting of plant on/near sensitive habitats such as mangroves, estuaries, 1. • Locate plants in industrially zoned area, if possible, to minimize orj^J, j
wetlands, coral reefs. concentrate the stress on local environmental services and to 1
!'! wetlands, coral reefs.
SN:
? a ig, , iss;ua;:':
S'^iK
^ = - '- Tf-
5: u>
rt NJ
^aii fflg
( s if f-'^l
2. Siting along water courses causing their eventual degradation.
«tf
d IB!*
3. Siting can cause serious air pollution problems for local area.
4. Siting can aggravate solid waste problems in an area.
!i!» m
~ s;- -.:? JL;K
isa
m
i'Sil 11
J- ; ;a*l *Fi* «:1
Jllli: a» i''
concentrate the stress on local environmental services and to ]' > [
facilitate the monitoring of discharges. 1 ==
Involve natural resource agencies in site selection process to review ~ ^
alternatives. J I
2. • Site selection process should examine alternatives that minimize
environmental effects and do not preclude beneficial use of the water > : (
body. : :'
• Plants with liquid discharges should be located only on a watercourse ~ =
having adequate capacity to assimilate wastes in treated effluent. ' : •
3. Locate plants in an area not subject to air inversions or trapping of
pollutants, and where prevailing winds are towards relatively ^ = g
unpopulated areas. i ^
4. • Site selection should evaluate the location according to the following ; .
guidelines:
• plot size sufficient for landfill or disposal on-site ! *
• proximity to suitable disposal site
• convenient for public/private contractors to collect and haul solid i
wastes for filial disposal I::
=- • =
Mi
-------
Table 10.11. Chemical and Petrochemical (continued)
Potential Negative Impacts
Mitigating Measures
OJ
k>
>»i
U)
Direct: Plant Operation
5. • Water pollution from discharge of liquid effluents and process
cooling water or runoff from waste piles.
• Depending on the process, runs at too high TOS, BOD, COD, and
pH.
6. Participate emissions to the atmosphere from all plant operations.
7. Gaseous emission of SO,, NO,, and CO and other applicable chemicals
to the atmosphere from chemical processes.
8. Accidental release of potentially hazardous solvents, acidic and alkaline
materials.
5. • Laboratory analysis of liquid effluent should include applicable
chemicals (depending on the process), TOS, BOD, COD, pH and
in-situ temperature monitoring.
All Plants
• No cooling water discharge. If recycling not feasible, discharge
cooling water provided receiving water temperature does not rise
>3°C.
• Maintain pH level of effluent discharge between 6.0 and 9.0.
• Control effluent to specified limitations in Bank or other guide-
lines for specific process.
Processing. Storage and Dispatch Area
• Minimize rainfall allowed to percolate through piles and runoff in
uncontrolled fashion.
• Line open storage areas to collect all stormwater.
6. Control particulates by scrubbers, fabric filter collectors or electrostatic
precipitators.
7. Control by scrubbing with water or alkaline solutions, incineration, or
absorption by other catalytic processes.
8. • Maintain storage and disposal areas to prevent accidental release.
• Provide spill mitigation equipment.
• Provide area diking or double wall tanks.
-------
Is
II
M
:<( i'm is: •
'M 1; ;:: ; liiij Ijiijii ii
;L* s
ia>, "
ft
I ! = LisfSr -f -: _=;;]|1 =- ;J = ^;1
Table 10.11. Chmiod and Petrochemical (continued)
•*"' ,1
11 a
i I H
M 1
Ti i
Potential Negative Impacts
Mitigating Measures
oo
k)
H->
i to
Direct: Plant Operation (continued)
9. Accidental radiation/biological hazard release (phannaceuticals).
10. Noise.
11. Surface runoff of chemicals, raw materials, intermediates, end
products, and solid wastes frequently stored in piles on the facility site
can pollute surface waters or percolate to groundwaters.
Indirect
12. • j Occupational health effects on workers due to fugitive dust,
materials handling, noise, or other process operations.
• Accidents occur at higher than normal frequency because of level
of skill or labor.
13. Regional solid waste problem exacerbated by inadequate on-site storage
or lack of ultimate disposal facilities.
9. Maintain certified storage and disposal facilities to minimize potential
for release.
10. • Reduce noise impact by enclosing and insulating noise emitting pro-
cesses or equipment in buildings or by use of other noise abatement
procedures.
11. • Rainwater percolation and runoff from solid materials, fuel and
waste piles can be controlled by covering and/or containment to
prevent percolation and runoff to ground and surface waters.
• Diked areas should be of sufficient size to contain an average 24
hour rainfall.
• Collect and monitor stormwater before discharge.
12. • Facility should implement a Safety and Health Program designed to:
• identify, evaluate, monitor, and control health hazards
• provide safety training
13. • Plan for adequate on-site disposal areas assuming screening for
hazardous characteristics of the leachate is known.
Provide, in design phase, for adequate ultimate disposal facilities.
-------
Table 10.11. Chemical and Petrochemical (continued)
Potential Negative Impacts
Mitigating Measures
Indirect (continued)
K)
14. Transit patterns disrupted, noise and congestion created, and
pedestrian hazards aggravated by heavy trucks transporting raw
materials to/from facility.
14. • Site selection can mitigate some of these problems.
• Special transportation sector studies should be prepared during
project feasibility to select best routes to reduce impacts.
• Transporter regulation and development of emergency contingency
plans to minimize risk of accidents.
-------
iiliili
1
! M. 1= ! • -..I ^.i;:
! 'BJ E ! IM
::
!i|H!
: Mill
Hi
TabMlO.12. Fertilizer
I
til
ill irt
I I ( !
!«! ll
an is
. !!
INI ilIM ii
Ti I ii ii tj
i , « - a, , i : «
ii 1 ;f|M ii
\> !s IIIM '-<-
Potential Negative Impacts
Mitigating Measures
Direct: Site Selection
1
j 1. Siting of plant on/near sensitive habitats such as mangroves, estuaries,
' wetlands, coral reefs.
1. • Locate plant in industrially zoned area, if possible, to minimize or
concentrate the stress on local environmental services and to facilitate
the monitoring of discharges.
• Integrate site selection process with natural resource agencies to
review alternatives.
,
!| 2. Siting along water courses causing their eventual degradation.
Ii
•T
i!
!j
!| 3. Siting can cause serious air pollution problems for local area.
* I
:k 4. Siting can aggravate solid waste problems in an area.
2. • Site selection process should examine alternatives that minimize
environmental effects and not preclude beneficial use of the water
body.
• Plants with liquid discharges should only be located on a watercourse
having adequate waste-absorbing capacity.
3. Locate at a high elevation in an area not subject to air inversions, and
where prevailing winds are towards relatively unpopulated areas.
4. • Site selection should evaluate the location according to the following
guidelines:
• plot size sufficient to landfill or dispose on-site
• proximity to suitable disposal site
• convenient for public/private contractors to collect and haul solid
wastes for final disposal
• availability of options for gypsum disposal or reuse
I' I
M-
-------
Table 10.12. Fertilizer (continued)
Potential Negative Impacts
Mitigating Measures
U)
Ko
Direct: Plant Operation
5. • Water pollution from discharge of liquid effluents and process
cooling water or runoff from waste piles.
• Phosphate plants: phosphate, fluoride, BOD5, Total Dissolved Solids
(TDS), pH
• Nitrogen plants: ammonia, urea, ammonium nitrate, COD, pH
• Materials storage piles runoff: TSS, pH, metals
6. Pa'rticulate emissions to the atmosphere from all plant operations.
7. Gaseous emission of SO, and NOX, ammonia, acid mist and fluorine
compounds to the atmosphere.
S. • Laboratory analysis of liquid effluent should include fluoride, BOD5,
TSS, and in-situ pH temperature monitoring.
All Plants
• No cooling water discharge. If recycling not feasible, discharge
cooling water provided receiving water temperature does not rise
>3°C.
• Maintain pH level of effluent discharge between 6.0 and 9.0.
• Control effluent to EPA limitations (40 CFR 418) for specific
process.
Material Storage Piles/Solid Waste Disposal Areas
• Minimize rainfall allowed to percolate through piles and runoff in
uncontrolled fashion.
• Line storage areas.
6. Control particulates by fabric filter collectors or electrostatic pre-
cipitators.
7. • Control by scrubbing.
• Analyze raw materials during feasibility stage of project.
• Proper design of sulfuric acid plants and nitric acid plants with N0t
abatement equipment.
-------
•=•
IN II
II
ii m i!i;a
* IP
MB!
*;/
qt'-i^i
S;1:!
«il
mm
i
M
is! i/UiJ, .,
tirc Impacts
Mitigating Measures
I1
!
I
i ^f^iUli
= .J!..f:-!."_. tj
1111
»^ a i*3=^«^f I i
g;; f •;-=;»>-' i
of
9. Surface runoff of constituents, raw materials, and solid wastes
^r^
or percolate to ground waters.
process operations, and accids occur
|H. Repond soUd w«te problem exacerbated by inadequate on-site
rtoiage or lack of ultimate disposal facilities.
i ffii
8. • Maintain storage and disposal areas to prevent accidental release.
• Provide spill mitigation equipment.
• Provide dikes around storage tanks.
9. • Plan
proper storage in design phase.
to
10.
• address the hazards to worker health and safety
• propose procedures for employee protection
• provide safety training
11. Plan for adequate on-site disposal, assuming screening for hazardous
charactensticsoftheleachateisknown. oszaraous
i(
-li-
-------
Table 10.12. Fertilizer (continued)
Potential Negative Impacts
Mitigating Measures
Direct: Plant Operation (continued)
U)
UJ
-J
12. Transit patterns disrupted, noise and congestion created, and pedestrian
hazards aggravated by heavy trucks transporting raw materials to/from
facility.
13. Increasing nitrate pollution of ground water from use of nitrogen
fertilizers.
14. Eutropbication of natural water systems.
12. • Site selection can mitigate some of these problems.
• Special transportation sector studies should be prepared during
project feasibility to select best routes to reduce impacts.
• Transporter regulation and development of emergency contingency
plans to minimize risk of accidents.
13. Directions for use should be provided to minimize nitrate pollution
potential.
14. Directions for use should be provided to minimize nitrate and
phosphate pollution potential.
-------
1
! i
•i
li i I!!
! I
Tahk 10.13. Food Processing
ilirn
iigt|s
'JiiiL
Hiiiii
Potential Negative Impacts
Mitigating Measures
i;
U)
U)
00
Direct: Site Selection
1. Siting of plant on/near sensitive habitats such as mangroves, estuaries,
wetlands, coral reefs or use of prime agricultural lands.
2. Siting along water courses causing their eventual degradation.
j. 3. Siting can cause serious odor pollution problems for local area.
4. Siting can aggravate solid waste problems in an area.
1. • Locate plant to minimize or concentrate the stress on local environ-
mental services and to facilitate the monitoring of discharges.
• Integrate site selection process with natural resource agencies to
review alternatives.
2. • Site selection process should examine alternatives that minimize
environmental effects and not preclude beneficial use of the water
body using the following guidelines:
• on a watercourse having maximum water dilution
and absorbing capacity
• in an area where wastewater can be reused with
minimal treatment for agricultural or industrial purposes
• within a municipality that is able to accept the plant wastes
in their sewage treatment system
3. Locate plant in an area not subject to air inversions or to trapping
pollution, and where prevailing winds are towards relatively unpopulated
S::;!;ii ill
•";: .>";; !!;
SSli!
areas.
4. • For facilities producing large volume of waste, site selection should
evaluate the location according to the following guidelines:
• plot size sufficient to landfill or on-site disposal
• proximity to a suitable disposal site
• convenient for public/private contractors to collect and haul solid
wastes for final disposal
P:iP ap
:;M'1M«H
!
=-
j li
-------
Table 10.13. Food Processing (continued)
Potential Negative Impacts
Mitigating Measures
Direct: Plant Operation
to
5. • Water pollution from discharge of liquid effluents and process
cooling water or runoff from waste piles.
• Plant: Oil and Grease, IDS, TSS, BOD, COD
6. Participate emissions to the atmosphere from all plant operations.
7. Gaseous and odorous emissions to the atmosphere from processing
operations.
8. Accidental release of potentially hazardous solvents, acidic alkaline
materials.
5. • Laboratory analysis of liquid effluent should include oil and grease,
TDS, TSS, BOD, COD and in-situ temperature monitoring.
All Plants
• No cooling water discharge. If recycling not feasible, discharge
cooling water provided receiving water temperature does not rise
>3°C.
• Maintain pH level of effluent discharge between 6.0 and 9.0.
• Control effluent to EPA specified limitations (40 CFR 405-409;
432) for specific process.
• Land application of waste effluents where appropriate.
6. Control particulates by fabric filter collectors or electrostatic pre-
cipitators.
7. • Control by natural scrubbing action of alkaline materials.
• Analysis of raw materials during feasibility stage of project can
determine levels of sulfur to properly design emission control
equipment.
8. • Maintain storage and disposal areas to prevent accidental release.
• Provide spill control equipment.
-------
1«
; || 11 II
BII !! I Ilii Mil
Mil
(I —
i ! «! Sti; lil
I 'if i5i> " < ii 1 (Hi "a
I i {
-• ;z=:?l. ! c
- ^'= ! 1 ':
II! Ill IIPM! •
11 i *al :«?: !i —
EM
;
SH !i; ' ii ;: jij ji • ii:; ill
i ail!, i ii
•--"
.- •••
:
:
Hi
iiliill
!M|l!b.,
inin
i ill i 1 I INK III
1 " •"•"• M
; :;;i ^, ^
IN i til
II III
r~
: Table 10.13. Food Pro«ssing (conlinued)
! i I I ,i| II
! HI!!!
Ii;! I!11! :|!!N i f :i iii > ?! H III Hi SWrf !oi B ilill !i
! 3 HiliSi
1^ = = I I! IS ill ill ill 5 |!H I
jj 1!
- =^=3^=;^ ii
,1
I iii I Hiii
Potential Negative Impacts
Mitigating Measures
JK,
*<:
rj4 I § P ft= H
Indirect
i|ij:j
9. • Occupational health effects on workers due to materials handling,
noise or other process operations.
Bl!
";•:!
-M-
Accidents occur at higher than normal frequency because of level of
knowledge and skill.
i (MJ
H-* =*- I*
-^CT
3!
SP;
! I I r sri
s H i =- =
| •?; 10. Regional solid waste problem exacerbated by inadequate on-site storage.
9. • Facility should implement a Safety and Health Program designed to
identify, evaluate, monitor, and control safety and health hazards at
a specific level of detail, and to address the hazards to worker health
and safety and procedures for employee protection, including any or
all of the following:
• site characterization and analysis
• site control
• training
• medical surveillance
• engineering controls, work practices and
personal protective equipment
• monitoring
• informational programs
• handling raw and process materials
• decontamination procedures
• emergency response
• illumination
• sanitation at permanent and temporary facilities
• regular safety meetings
10. Plan for adequate on-site disposal areas assuming that the
characteristics of the leachate is known.
ill SS;
iiiiii
-------
Table 10.13. Food Processing (continued)
Potential Negative Impacts
Mitigating Measures
Indirect (continued)
oo
i
H-*
*-
11. Transit patterns disrupted, noise and congestion created, and pedestrian
hazards aggravated by heavy trucks transporting raw materials to/from
facility.
12. Potential for disease transmission from inadequate waste disposal.
11. • Site selection can mitigate some of these problems, such as
pedestrian hazards.
• Special transportation sector studies should be prepared during
project feasibility to select best routes to reduce impacts.
• Transport regulation and development of emergency contingency
plans to minimize risk of accidents.
12. • Develop specifications for:
• food preparation and or processing
• waste disposal processes
• monitor fecal coliform or other bacteria
-------
1 III I! I I! !
'Ml i!
— *i* " 5 = i ~, r- -
ill
III
f '•-• -: , :; !
MI
j * •- i| Ji : "1 •
;j =!I F| MM
i =-• Si< «i i Ii
iM i! !«! i
l!
!!ll
i;:i
Jp J
;
!?*: ;-
" -. !,»•» yt™t.:(l,,i" «»i - ......
-ii,;
E ;;;'=:
S* .I1!-:
: ' i'» 1'S ^1 ,
; ;^'!J: [SMI? iM ;i ;
|| I I f ~
' ! •iiSrtji^j jh: - - ; _
• " j'3 Table 10.14. Iron and Stee! Manufacturing
I 3
yiM! sliE
iijiu; : i MI ;: •- ^ >-••
V 1 HI
II I i !
[Mil i ii
i i
M ji i i
i
Potential Negative Impacts
Mitigating Measures
si
;J J;Direct: SiteSdedion
ii j;l. Siting of plant on/near sensitive habitats such as mangroves, estuaries,
« fl,
!» «i
•••• 3
wetlands, coral reefs.
USs:
ffl!:3 i!
II a i
P ^rt^T*! v=
I 2. Siting along water courses causing their eventual degradation.
**v~v?».; ivs1:", - i:
iii^Kti^^ iJ41.= ^ ^
^(vji , i:
• I 3. S,iting can cause serious air pollution problems for local area.
-;--: ^"i:
JU 81
! S 1;
---SsfwA-Ji"
- ^ t —t ta^
LJ^ftfesv
: :
ri ji 4. Siting can aggravate solid waste problems hi an area.
' ji
= ;r-=^-^*-^ I .c - .
» i ™ i i
-Hi
ji
1. • Locate plant in industrially zoned area, if possible, to minimize or !'
concentrate the stress on local environmental services and to > i
facilitate the monitoring of discharges. i:
• Involve natural resource agencies in site selection process to review ;
alternatives.
2. • Site selection process should examine alternatives (hat minimize
environmental effects and do not preclude beneficial use of water
bodies.
• Plants with liquid discharges should only be located on a water-
course having adequate capacity to assimilate waste in treated
effluent.
3. Locate plant at elevation above local topography, in an area not subject ;
to air inversions, and where prevailing winds are towards relatively ;
unpopulated areas. _u_
4. • Site selection should evaluate the location according to the following I
guidelines: i
• proximity to suitable disposal site :
• plot size sufficient for landfill or disposal on-site i
• convenient for public/private contractors to collect and haul solid ! |
wastes for final disposal j j
• reuse or recycle materials to reduce waste volumes j j
-------
Table 10.14. Iron and Sted Manufacturing (continued)
Potential Negative Impacts
Mitigating Measures
u>
to
H-»
-t>.
UJ
Direct: Plant Operation
5. • Water pollution from discharge of liquid effluents and process
cooling water or runoff from waste piles.
• Plant: Total Suspended Solids (TSS), oil and grease, ammonia
nitrogen, cyanide, phenols, benzene, naphthalene, benzo-a-
pyrene, pH, lead, zinc
• Materials storage piles runoff: TSS, pH, metals
6. Particulate emissions to the atmosphere from all plant operations.
7. Gaseous emission of SO, and CO to the atmosphere from coke
production and fuel burning.
5. • Laboratory analysis of liquid effluent should include: TSS, oil and
grease, ammonia nitrogen, cyanide, phenols, benzene, naphthalene,
benzo-a-pyrene, pH, lead, zinc, and in-situ temperature monitoring.
All Plants
• No cooling water discharge. If recycling not feasible, discharge
cooling water provided receiving water temperature does not rise
>3°C.
• Maintain pH level of effluent discharge between 6.0 and 9.0.
• Control effluent to specified limitations in Bank or other
guidelines (e.g., EPA 40 CFR 420) for specific process.
Material Storage Piles/Solid Waste Disposal Areas
• Minimize stormwater allowed to percolate through materials and
runoff in uncontrolled fashion.
• Line open storage areas.
6. Control particulates by fabric filler collectors or electrostatic
precipitators.
7. • Control by scrubbing with alkaline resolutions.
• Analysis of raw materials during feasibility stage of project planning
can determine existing levels of sulfur to properly design emission
control equipment.
Strip, recycle and reuse carbon monoxide.
-------
:;:
*«M! »l
111! I
ili
M I i!
' ' M« It 5 : H
! '.•--. I , i!-*>. _'«'! II
• a
if
!
i iiUi; - . i j ; .i^
; ! sii
: i
11 !!
~ ~ i ' i I in ! i nl
Table 10.14. Iron and Sted Manufacturing (continued)
i
A
jj
!!l
\m m
ifiii ili,
Mr
JiM
:>:-
Pbtesitial Negative Impacts
Mitigating Measures
urn m
~"- =*
m i
m i
„
.
E =**= -i -, -,
ijf^i:
]!=
i
;J
,
IB
jit
Direct: Plant Operation (continued)
8. Accidental release of potentially hazardous solvents, acidic and alkaline
materials.
_ 9. Surface runoff of constituents, raw materials, coal, coal breeze and
other substances frequently stored in piles on the facility grounds can
pollute surface waters or percolate to ground waters.
Indirect
10.
Occupational health effects on workers due to fugitive dust,
materials handling, noise or other process operations.
, Accidents occur at higher than normal frequency because of level of
skill or labor.
11. Regional solid waste problem exacerbated by inadequate on-site storage
or lack of ultimate disposal facilities.
8. • Maintain storage and disposal areas to prevent accidental release.
• Provide spill mitigation equipment, double wall tanks and/or diking
of storage tanks.
9. • Rainwater percolation and runoff from solid materials, fuel and
waste piles can be controlled by covering and/or containment to
prevent percolation and runoff to ground and surface waters.
• Diked areas should be of sufficient size to contain an average 24
hour rainfall.
10. • Facility should implement a Safety and Health Program designed to:
• identify, evaluate, monitor, and control safety and
health hazards
• provide safety training
11. Plan for adequate on-site disposal areas, assuming screening for
hazardous characteristics of the leachate is known.
-
I s
ill >
-------
Table 10.14. Iron and Steel Manufacturing (continued)
Potential Negative Impacts
Mitigating Measures
Indirect (continued)
U)
to
>—>
-1^
Ul
12. Transit patterns disrupted, noise congestions created, and pedestrian
hazards aggravated by heavy trucks transporting raw materials and fuel
to/from facility.
12. • Site selection can mitigate some of these problems.
• Special transportation sector studies should be prepared during
project feasibility to select best routes to reduce impacts.
• Transport regulation and development of emergency contingency
plans to minimize risk of accidents.
-------
in
— Tl I II
WM H
- — •= i »
l= liliiil I !P
=H!I s iiiin | HS
li ir ii|
=f - i;; \%
_-==- _ :: i E
Potential Negative Impacts
• if i i — s mm
1 ! I!
li " i i
i| Table 10.15. Noiferrous Metafe 1 s
1? i 1 H
5 • ! 1
• » i ,
« i i
SM I
— = =
s = = i
: i • i
=
Mitigating Measures
il
ll
Direct: SiteSdection
-1 =
U)
k)
1. Siting of plant on/near sensitive habitats such as mangroves, estuaries,
wetlands, coral reefs.
2. Siting along water courses causing their eventual degradation.
1. • Locate plant in industrially zoned area, if possible, to minimize or |
concentrate the stress on local environmental services and to
facilitate the monitoring of discharges.
. * Involve natural resource agencies in site selection process to review
alternatives.
2. • Site selection process should examine alternatives which minimize
environmental effects and do not preclude beneficial use of water
bodies.
• Plants with liquid discharges should only be located on a watercourse
having adequate capacity to assimilate waste in treated effluent.
3.. Siting can cause serious air pollution problems for local area.
3. Locate plant at elevation above local topography in an area not subject
to air inversions, and where prevailing winds are towards relatively
unpopulated areas.
IT
4. Siting can aggravate solid waste problems hi an area.
4. • Site selection should evaluate the location according to the following
guidelines:
• proximity to suitable disposal site
• plot size sufficient for landfill or disposal on-site
• convenient for public/private contractors to collect and haul solid
wastes for final disposal
• reuse or recycle materials to reduce waste volumes
-------
Table 10.15. Nonferrous Metals (continued)
Potential Negative Impacts
Mitigating Measures
Direct: Plant Operation
U)
k)
5. • Water pollution from discharge of liquid effluents and process
cooling water or runoff from waste piles.
• Plant: metals, oil and grease, ammonia nitrogen
• Materials storage piles runoff: TSS, pH, metals
6. Participate emissions to the atmosphere from all plant operations.
5. • Laboratory analysis of liquid effluent should include: metals, TSS,
oil and grease, ammonia nitrogen, pH, and in-situ temperature
monitoring.
AH Plants
• No cooling water discharge. If recycling not feasible, discharge
cooling water provided receiving water temperature does not rise
>3°C.
• Maintain pH level of effluent discharge between 6.0 and 9.0.
• Control effluent to specified limitations in Bank or other
guidelines (e.g., EPA 40 CFR 421) for specific process.
Material Storage Piles/Solid Waste Disposal Areas
• Minimize stonnwater allowed to percolate through materials and
runoff in uncontrolled fashion.
• Line open storage areas.
6. Control particulates by fabric filter collectors or electrostatic
precipitators.
7. Gaseous emission to the atmosphere from metals processing and fuel
burning.
7. • Control by scrubbing with alkaline solutions.
• Analysis of raw materials during feasibility stage of project planning
can determine existing levels of sulfur to properly design emission
control equipment.
-------
II
I - ~
11 :
I! I
Table 10.15. Nooferrous Metals (continued)
II
I
- T!
i • • PI(i
Potential Nefative Impacts
Mitigating Measures
U)
- I
- oo
Direct: Plant Operation (continued)
8. Accidental release of potentially hazardous solvents, acidic and alkaline
materials.
9. Surface runoff of constituents, raw materials, and other substances
frequently stored in piles on the facility grounds can pollute surface
waters or percolate to ground waters.
Indirect
10. • Occupational health effects on workers due to fugitive dust,
materials handling, noise or other process operations.
• Accidents occur at higher than normal frequency because of level of
skill or labor.
i
11. Regional solid waste problem exacerbated by inadequate on-site storage
or lack of ultimate disposal facilities.
12. Transit patterns disrupted, noise congestions created, and pedestrian
hazards aggravated by heavy trucks transporting raw materials and fuel
to/from facility.
8. • Maintain storage and disposal areas to prevent accidental release. I
i
• Provide spill mitigation equipment, double wall tanks and/or diking'
of storage tanks. '•_
9. • Rainwater percolation and runoff from solid materials, fuel and;
waste piles can be controlled by covering and/or containment to
prevent percolation and ninoff to ground and surface waters. !
• Diked areas should be of sufficient size to contain an average 24
hour rainfall. r
10. • Facility should implement a Safety and Health Program designed to: [
i- •
• identify, evaluate, monitor, and control safety and }
health hazards |
• provide safety training i
L
11. Plan for adequate on-site disposal areas, assuming screening for;
hazardous characteristics of the leachate is known. I
12. • Site selection can mitigate some of these problems. ;
• Special transportation sector studies should be prepared during
project feasibility to select best routes to reduce impacts.
• Transport regulation and development of emergency contingency
plans to mi"it*""» risk of accidents.
-------
Table 10.15. Nonfcrrous Metals (continued)
Potential Negative Impacts Mitigating Measures
Indirect (continued)
13. Muling of ore and coal locally for metals manufacturing can create 13. • Plan for coal resource usage to fit availability and impose
conflicts with other industries (coal for utilities), and aggravate restrictions on manner of mining.
•^ erosion/sedimentation of water courses by uncontrolled or unrestricted
,1. operations. • Coordination with responsible agency-in-charge to examine site
^ reclamation options once facility decommissioned.
14. Metals processing may require significant amounts of electricity which 14. • Operate metals processing operations at hours when other power
may result in conflicts with other industrial users. consuming industries are not operating.
• Increase electrical power generation capabilities.
-------
I!
! «! ill! !
t
ICrj! NN
jrfi i«i
i, =1-1!! i i;i! Hi i :: i i
'-" If it il'i 151 ill! I -
1 ^ -% * 1= l i • =-1 i = i
Sii !'!!£ I !!;: -1 Ilhi! ' - :
II PHI I" III IIM I
I! !
i!(
" T
: * «s 'i
'titf^ ,-
Hi =hi:;.;Si
<• s 11 W ; 11 i i' r- ••'.'. «
rokum Refining
i i
i!1 IS «
is fs ^---
IT
j i
I I
Poteitial Nefttive Impacts
Mitigating Measures
U)
N)
Direct: SiteSdedion
1. Siting of refinery on/near sensitive habitats such as mangroves,
estuaries, wetlands, coral reefs.
2. Siting along water courses causing their eventual degradation.
3. Siting can cause serious air pollution problems for local area.
4. Siting can aggravate solid waste problems in an area.
1. • Locate refinery in industrially zoned area, if possible, to minimize j
or concentrate the stress on local environmental services and to i
facilitate the monitoring of discharges.
• Integrate site selection process with natural resource agencies to
review alternatives.
2. • Site selection process should examine alternatives that minimize,
environmental effects and not preclude beneficial use of the water
body using the following guidelines: -
• on a watercourse having adequate waste assimilative capacity =
• in an area where wastewater can be reused with minimal:
treatment for agricultural or industrial purposes •
• within a municipality that is able to accept the plant wastes in I
their sewage treatment system \
3. Locate refinery in an area not subject to air inversions or trapping of
air pollution, and where prevailing winds are towards relatively!
unpopulated areas. =
4. • For facilities producing large volume of waste, site selection should
evaluate the location according to the following guidelines: :
• plot size sufficient to landfill or dispose on-site
• proximity to suitable disposal site
• convenient for public/private contractors to collect and haul solid j
wastes for final disposal i
I
-------
Table 10.16. Petroleum Refining (continued)
Potential Negative Impacts
Mitigating Measures
U)
to
I
Direct: Plant Operation
5. • Water pollution from discharge of liquid effluents and process cooling
water or runoff from waste piles may contain:
BOD, COD, TOC, oil and grease, ammonia, phenolic compounds,
sulfldes, and chromium.
5. • Control by wastewater reuse, at-source pretreatment and end-of-pipe
control technology.
(a) Major at-source pretreatment measures include:
• stripping of sour waters
• neutralization and oxidation of spent caustics
(b) End-of-pipe control technology relies on a combination of flow
equalization, physical-chemical methods (such as dissolved air
flotation and sludge thickeners), and biological methods (such
as activated sludge, aerated lagoons or trickling filters).
6. • Air pollution from refinery operations:
(a) Storage vessels — hydrocarbons (HC)
i
(b) Refinery process gas - hydrogen sulfide
(c) Catalyst regenerators - particulates, carbon monoxide (CO)
(d) Accumulator vents - HC
(e) Pumps and compressors — HC
6. • Source control measures to reduce air contaminants and odors:
(a) vapor recovery systems, floating-roof tanks, pressure tanks,
vapor balance, painting tanks white
(b) ethanolamine absorption, sulfur recovery
(c) cyclones-precipitator in-situ CO combustion, CO boiler,
cyclones-water scrubber, multiple cyclones, electrostatic
precipitator, bag filter
(d) vapor recovery and vapor incineration
(e) mechanical seals, vapor recovery, sealing glands by oil
pressure, maintenance
-------
!• • III I i II
i!ji
1 Sf M< ft i *i
iili iii
fl II
a-
i: :
i i i
Table 10.16. Petroleum Refining (continued)
Potential Negative Impacts
I
! i :;• P'i!: H t> Direct: Plant Operation (continued)
I
V.
n '; ••-••• :'
,,!,:, f ;i,, p,
M
=i
Is 3^M*Vi!
»(
:i
l!
i;
j J - ^ t ,i- ^-i
:;! P ^ !-)] jt
«i 8;! I ; ss t;
Si
I J fl «!l I'M J|
I- I •- 1:
1
3!
|W * ];; 1j
I
1L
(0 Vacuum jets-HC
(g) Equipment valves - HC
(h) Pressure relief valves — HC
(i) Effluent waste disposal - HC
()) Bulk-loading facilities - HC
(k) Acid treating - HC, sulfides, mercaptans
i
(1) Acid sludge storage and shipping - HC
(m) Spent-caustic handling — sulfides, mercaptans
(n) Sweetening processes - HC •
(o) Sour-water treating - ammonia (NH3)
Mitigating Measures
(f) vapor incineration
(g) inspection and maintenance
(h) vapor recovery, vapor incineration, rupture discs, inspection and
maintenance
(i) enclosure of separators, covering of sewer boxes, use of liquid seal,
liquid seals on drains
(j) vapor collection with recovery or incineration, submerged or
bottom loading
(k) continuous-type agitators with mechanical mixing, replacement with
catalytic hydrogenation units, incineration of all vented gases,
cessation of sludge burning
(1) same as (k)
(m) Steam scrubbing, neutralization incineration, return system
(n) steam stripping of spent doctor solution to hydrocarbon recovery
before air regeneration, replacement of treating unit with other less
objectionable units
i
(o) use of sour-water oxidizers and gas incineration, conversion to ;
ammonium sulfate i
• a «« Jl;s s fi
-------
Table 10.16. Petroleum Refining (continued)
Potential Negative Impacts
Mitigating Measures
Direct: Plant Operation (continued)
oo
to
U)
(p) Mercaptan disposal
(q) Asphalt blowing - HC
(r) Shutdowns, turnarounds — HC
(s) Boilers and heaters ~ SOX, NO,, particulates
(t) Sulfiir recovery unit (Claus) - SO2
(u) Solvents (hydrocarbons, amines)
(p) conversion to disulfldes, adding to catalytic cracking charge stock;
incineration, use of material in organic synthesis
(q) incineration, water scrubbing (non-recirculating type)
(r) depressurizing and purging to vapor recovery
(s) fuel hydro-desulfurization, flue gas desuifurization
(t) provide tail gas treatment; spare unit put into operation during main
unit downtime
(u) provide closed circuit recovery units
7. Noise Emissions
8. Accidental release (spills) of raw materials, products, potentially
hazardous solvents, chemicals, acidic and alkaline materials.
7. • Enclose noise emitting equipment/processes in structures to reduce
potential for fugitive emissions.
• Employ other noise abatement procedures.
8. • Inspect and maintain storage and disposal areas to prevent
accidental release.
• Provide alarms, automatic shut-off valves, containment (bunding,
enclosing) of accidental spills, spill mitigation equipment and
emergency response plans.
-------
II
•i
=
Ei
I'll
ii
M11II! II
«•
H
I!
I!
i i
f = IltH-
r »i Tir i
I t^-H ! I
Table 10.16. Petroleum Refining (continued) =
Ill ! 1
I III-
Potential Negative Impacts
Mitigating Measures
: jiJ Plant Operation (continued)
=i; i ii x L*
I
» Hi R 9. Surface runoff of constituents, raw materials, processing facilities and
I transfer areas can pollute surface waters or percolate to ground waters.
JJ;;N|
p Indirect
|
MA Q 10. • Occupational health effects on workers due to fugitive dust, materials
, handling, noise or other process operations.
!h! i • Accidents occur at higher than normal frequency because of level of
I ^ m skill or labor.
M i tH
1 :,
-------
Table 10.16. Petroleum Refining (continued)
Potential Negative Impacts
Mitigating Measures
Indirect (continued)
U)
io
11. Regional solid waste problem exacerbated by inadequate on-site
storage.
12. Transit patterns disrupted, noise and congestion created, and pedestrian
hazards aggravated by heavy trucks transporting raw materials to/from
facility.
13. Potential for increased land/surface water degradation by pipeline
transport of products or new materials.
11. Plan for adequate on-site disposal areas assuming screening for
• hazardous characteristics of the leachate is known.
12. • Site selection can mitigate some of these problems.
• Special transportation sector studies should be prepared during
project feasibility to select best routes to reduce impacts.
• Transporter regulation and development of emergency contingency
plans to minimize risk of accidents.
13. • Siting of pipeline should be such as to minimize environmental
hazards.
• Develop program for periodic pipeline surveillance.
-------
-I i ill
II
ill
! il
•i
'- El i!
= ^ f ]ij
«
! !!
!
a ! ts
I
!i ii : I : :i« : ,»iii i
'I'M1 i> ! i :•" . ^
!?EI!!llf!
ii!
! L"r=r !'B '
«S i! ii ,
Swill!!; siiiiisi!" y.ii.y.i.ir.'ig! ^KL.
i)
" m\t ii
10.17.
r, and Timber Processing
iii
U
M ':-.
,i,»^?>flL •
•K^i ;;ui !
11^ M
i!!
2. Siting along water courses causing their eventual degradation.
11
• «,a^
Mil
•;
-^ii
;;
:f
;.
:::;^ .;
1;
i!
;
- [-j -_. ^s
iiss
j§
3. Siting can cause serious air pollution problems for local area.
Direct: Plant Operation
4. • Inadequate or non-existent forest management resulting in soil
erosion, diminishing biotopes.
• Unchecked pesticide application causing toxicologic effects on
beneficial organisms and undesirable changes in forest ecosystems.
1. • Locate plant in industrially zoned area, if possible, to minimize or
concentrate the stress on local environmental services and to facilitate
the monitoring of discharges.
• Integrate site selection process with natural resource agencies to
review alternatives. !
i |
*:V!;Sr f 1
- =*^« i ;s
»
r ^!L i --_
!5;|
5
|
:i
= ?
SSiig
llSiJ
2. • Site selection process should examine alternatives that minimize
environmental effects and not preclude beneficial use of the water
body. 11
» i= B
fc l --' ii
« ini
« I )!
having adequate waste-absorbing capacity.
• Plants with liquid discharges should only be located on a watercourse : t
-u
W !!
3. Locate in an area not subject to air inversions or trapping of pollution, i M ; j
and where prevailing winds are towards relatively unpopulated areas. j |
iiS'S :*
il
||!|!l
4. • In project design phase, develop a forest management plan based on ; s ' j
an environmental impact study. ; j
~Kj-£ 'I
S:'*:!< i|
• Do not select wood supply from primary forest reserves (for furthergjl j | |j :
discussion, see sections on "Natural Forest Management" andPj?;* i|
3 ™ "'- !!l ft
, a I « 11
!| II
"Tropical Forests").
i
•y-
TKJa -. -, ; j-
U »
-------
Table 10.17. Pulp, Paper, and Timber Processing (continued)
Potential Negative Impacts
Mitigating Measures
Direct: Plant Operation (continued)
5. • Release of gaseous wastes.
• Sulfur dioxide
• Total reduced sulfur compounds (TRS)
• Participates
• Toxic organic compounds (e.g., chlorine, hydrogen sulfide)
LO
Ui
6. • Release of liquid wastes to water bodies.
• Conventional pollutants causing the following impacts:
• changes in pH and toxicity
• dissolved and suspended solids
• eutrophication
• foam and scum
• slime growth
• thermal effects
• changes in taste, color and odor
• fish-flesh tainting
5. • Sulfur Dioxide
• Control by proper operations such as liquor recovery furnace.
• Select appropriate auxiliary fuels.
• Fuel desulfurization, flue gas scrubbing, and process modifi-
cation.
• Collection by headers, scrubbed with alkali solution, then burned.
Participate
• Removal by evaporator-scrubbers, cyclones or electrostatic pre-
cipitators.
Air toxins
• Prevent/control releases through process design.
6. • In-plant operating and housekeeping measures:
• Pulp washing, chemical and fiber recovery, treatment and reuse
of selected waste streams, collection of spills, and prevention of
and collection tanks for accidental discharges.
• Monitoring of sewers, drainage channels, and discharges to warn
of spills.
• Load leveling of treatment facilities by use of storage basins and
other measures.
• Recycling of barking water.
-------
II
ii
E
I
i
! I
I
!
i
!
i
II ! ft
J l^^i .kj^^-t -^"~.= I I
!
'
ill
mm m
rt •
I I
ilii
5 ! I I
! :»« 1 '1 ---- '- !
Mii i ij« i «; Hi ! " '
i i » :(i d ,.»
; i |!| ! ,11
i al I
j -i; j Is i f- ii'_ ; : ; N
f;=| j ,--^ s --=•»= -^=i»---=^= 5=
47^ JPuJp, Paper, and Timber Processing (continued)
i i • • * •*
Potential Negative Impacts
Mitigating Measures
lip
! !p Direct: Plant Operation (continued)
!i
IT'S
Toxins such as trichlorophenol, pentachlorophebol and zinc.
io
i—i
Ul
00
fK> 7. • Disposal of solid wastes on the land.
Ill • Subsurface leaching with subsequent contamination of ground and
'Si surface water.
• Destruction of ecologically sensitive areas such as marshes and
other wetlands.
• Proliferation of rodents, scavengers and insects harmful to human
health.
i • Fires, health hazards, and unsightly conditions.
K 8. Sludge incineration.
• External effluent treatment:
• Primary-sedimentation basins, gravity clarifiers, and dissolved
air flotation.
• Secondary-oxidation ponds, trickling filter, aerated lagoon,
activated sludge, irrigation, sedimentation basin (to remove
biological solids) and secondary clarifier.
• Toxins control by substitution of less/non-toxic chemicals.
7. Source reduction, source segregation, by-product utilization, appropriate
planning and management of disposal sites such as lining of disposal
sites with collection system for run-off water and leachate (see "Solid
Waste Collection and Disposal Systems" section).
—1—^—Tr-
8. • Dewatering by vacuum filtration and chemical conditioning to
prepare sludges for burning.
• Incinerators:
• waste only
• bunting in the bark boiler
• burning in power boiler
1 1
-------
Table 10.17. Pulp, Paper, and Timber Processing (continued)
Potential Negative Impacts
Mitigating Measures
OJ
to
)—»
Ul
Indirect
9. • Occupational health effects on workers due to:
• Special pulp mill operations such as preparing logs (chipping
and grinding).
• Handling and storing of pulpwood and paper chips, and raw
materials other than pulpwood.
« Chemical processes used in making pulp, bleaching, and stock
preparation.
• Handling of spent liquors and machine room operations involves
dust, fumes and gases, as well as special equipment such as
shredders, clippers, cutters, heavy mobile equipment, etc.
10. Transit patterns disrupted, noise and congestion created, and pedestrian
hazards aggravated by heavy trucks transporting raw materials, fuel and
final products to/from the facility.
9. • Facility should implement a Safety and Health Program designed to:
• identify, evaluate, monitor, and control hazards to employees
• design safe operating procedures
• provide training in safety practices and the handling of
emergencies
10. • Site selection can mitigate some of these problems.
• Special transportation sector studies should be prepared during
project feasibility stage to select best routes to reduce impacts.
• Follow transportation regulations and develop emergency contin-
gency plans to minimize risk of accidents.
-------
fill
!Ni iliilf
Il
ITTI 111 III
i i 'I - i i ••;»
'M!
ii {<
jf
ni
s:.
,:j :: ;
(|!M i 3« M iiijiiiii
gijj ||! SI jj|iij!i
r J ,!
[
i
i *. f
...... ....i? is
;;
!i!!i! 'Mil! !i i i\t ii it
c; ii; ; i ii
' H Ii 1
i
! 1
i - = = • •
I 1
WH i j j i: :i ,
TaHc 10.18. Minint axid Mineral Processes
ill i
Jin; jiilf!
Ftotential NctaUve Impacts
Mitigating Measures
Sj:! Mil! M
i ; ,( ,•
.. ii - = - ! _ ™l =
Modificatioo/losfl of soil profile, vegetation, and surface drainages
J^ during exploration, mining, and construction.
B; "^
3i :?;»
ft
g «1
m
= »*ii
2. • Damage/destruction of cultural resources and historic sites.
----*;
v? • Survey monuments during exploration, mining and construction.
3. • Degradation of surface waters by soil erosion from disturbed
^ areas, waste piles, and stockpiles.
3S
jfj • Decreased capacity of local reservoirs/ponds from sUtation.
1. • Require appropriate resource surveys, before disturbance, of
areas that may be affected by the project to identify:
• cultural and historic resources
• flora and fauna
• soils
• surface and groundwater quality and quantity
• land uses
• significant topographic features
• Mitigation measures based on identified resource conflicts may
include:
• avoidance
• timing of operations
• recovering and archiving cultural and historic resources
• segregation and stockpiling for use in reclamation (soils)
2. See No. 1.
3. • Require control of stormwater runoff and prompt revegetation
on disturbed areas.
• Avoid disturbance of streams, drainages, ponds and wetlands.
-1 I!
Ii !
U
-------
Table 10.18. Mining and Mineral Processes (continued)
Potential Negative Impacts
Mitigating Measures
Direct (continued)
• Where disturbance cannot be avoided, require use of sediment
control structures/practices.
• Water quality standards should include suspended solids.
4. Contamination of surface waters and shallow groundwater wastes,
(aquifers) by waste water from mine drainage, equipment servicing,
and sanitary and domestic wastes.
4. • Require treatment of:
5. Disruption/contamination of local aquifers by exploration drill holes
and mining excavations.
6. Reduction in local water supplies.
mine drainage
sanitary/domestic and stormwater runoff to meet water
quality standards before discharge
• Prompt cleanup of any spills (oils, lubricants and cleaning solvents).
• Water quality standards should be established for all waste water
discharges.
S. • Avoid or minimize penetration of aquifers below the strata
being mined.
• Drill holes outside or below the mine area should be properly cased
or sealed.
6. Require replacement from alternate sources.
-------
I
H
K
H
i
11
i
I
'
9. Degradation/loss of vegetation (and soil productivity) from discharge
of contaminated waters (see No. 4).
10. Modification of vegetation and introduction of non-native species.
11. Contamination of surface areas with mineralized/toxic rock
material.
12. Degradation of air quality and visibility from airborne particulates
(blasting, road traffic, wind erosion).
7. • Prohibit or restrict disturbance of significant habitat wetlands.
• Require prompt reclamation to forage and habitat favorable to local
wildlife.
8. • Mark wildlife road crossings.
• Emphasize driver awareness.
• Install road underpasses.
9. See No. 4.
10. Require prompt reclamation of disturbed areas and revegetation with
native species.
11. Require identification and segregation of toxic rock materials.
12. • Require the following:
• proper blasting practices to minimize airborne particulates
• watering haulage roads
• prompt revegetation or application of sealants and dust
suppressants to disturbed areas (including waste and topsoil piles)
II
I 51
1:11
-------
Table 10.18. Mining and Mineral Processes (continued)
Potential Negative Impacts
Mitigating Measures
Direct (continued)
13. Degradation of air quality from routine operational (diesel)
emissions.
OJ
is)
h—»
ON
U)
14. Air quality degradation from processing emissions.
IS. Land-use conflicts.
16. Road damage, accidents, and traffic delays from increased truck
traffic on local roads.
13. • Appropriate pollution control devices should be installed
and operative on all diesel/gasoline powered equipment.
• Hydrocarbon vapor control at all fuel transfer points.
• Prompt cleanup of any oil spills.
14. Require use of adequate technology to ensure emissions are kept
at acceptable levels.
IS. • Consult with local land users in siting access roads, air
fields, utility lines, and to extent possible, mining and pro-
cessing facilities.
• Allow other land uses to continue on the site where compatible with
the operations.
16. • Observe road load limits.
• Design roads for adequate capacity and visibility.
• Ensure that roads are properly signed, vehicles are well-maintained,
and drivers are trained and safety-conscious.
• Provide buses or require that commuting workers car-pool or
provide buses.
-------
i
1!
s "5=1 T
i!
.
"1ft f _
HIT
-Ml
BIB
illj
Eit - : i^-
__
«
J^^r r:--" «
I
•ill I III
ii
MI
hi
J«!h
•- ^ « s :
ra ;t«,,,
IB I lit II
" I! ! !
II II
ni
lif
! l!'» ! ' --•„ - .., .......
0.18. Milling and Minei^ Processes (continued)
II
id VA
I
i( ill
NIK
^ :i-
pf m
»*
f m til: :. =f-
bi ?p fli ; • !« ' s
\
« •! ;::'! * i? j |!
M1 S I 5! M i |S i ^ i
Potential Negative Impacts
Mitigating Measures
f Direct (continued)
1 i /' - ;
• :." :; I
1 r y-,'- \
• fi : -- . i
1 i ii i
1 J I;:1: ;
I ? n l
1 =i* = s B «
J ;"* - ': - (
1,,fij 1
i i i i! i1
d ! ! |! 1
i!s; 1
'iji I
>•;£ i
II 1
i;^ ;
•*-
jijl ;
:!! '
^
I i-i -:^
i a I ;
i
1 Illii
-------
Table 10.18. Mining and Mineral Processes (continued)
Potential Negative Impacts
Mitigating Measures
Direct (continued)
21. Increased demands on services and facilities in local communities,
social and cultural conflicts, concern with community stability
(boom and bust scenario).
OJ
io
Ui
22. Conflicts with native cultures, traditions, and life-styles.
21. • Require pre-development, socioeconomic study of potentially
affected communities to identify possible impacts on services,
infrastructure, dislocations, and conflicts.
• These impacts can be addressed by:
community assistance grants
loans
prepayment of taxes
phasing mineral development
constructing needed community facilities
* Cooperative and open working relations should be established early
with local communities and maintained throughout the life of the
project.
• Project workers should be encouraged to participate in community
affairs.
22. • Brief all employees to ensure awareness of and sensitivity to
the local cultures, traditions, and lifestyles.
• Ensure that native leaders are aware of the projected activities, are
assisted in identifying impacts that may be of particular concern to
them, and have a voice in appropriate mitigation measures.
• Mitigation may include isolating the work force from the native
community.
-------
ft
!" M
(;-.rt|B ,-, -, *
t= • ! i
TaWe 10.18. Mining and Mineral Processes (continued)
is i :i i i I ; I!
i
l!I| 1 i
i i
= •
i i
II
i
Hill
IB
....
l-
T
H
||
••
H
a
Potential Nef ttit e Impacts
Mitigating Measures
Direct (continued)
Ni
23. Subsidence of land surface (underground mining).
24. Loss of birds and animals in tailings and leach ponds.
25. Modification/disruption of surface waters (dredging).
23. * Require adequate support be provided in the underground workings
through pillars, cribbing or backfill.
• Monitor controlled subsidence and identify possible subsidence areas
for land-use restrictions.
24. • Minimize surface area of tailings and leach ponds, and
require that they be promptly drained or closed when not in
use.
• Net covering, fencing, or scaring may be required at active ponds.
25. • Require use of sediment control structures/practices.
• Water quality standards should include suspended solids.
IS
Indirect
1. Degradation of remote areas through improved access and increased
use.
1. • Access remote areas by air rather than roads during early
exploration stage.
• Restrict use of access roads, and remove and reclaim any access
roads at end of production.
• Minimize need for community development by rotating work crews
and precluding permanent residences.
B
-------
Table 10.18. Mining and Mineral Processes (continued)
Potential Negative Impacts
Mitigating Measures
Indirect (continued)
2. Vandalizau'on of cultural resources and historic sites.
to
3. Wildlife loss through poaching.
4. Secondary population growth and related effects.
2. • Do not publicize cultural resource sites in remote or unpro-
tected locations.
• Restrict unnecessary access and patrol sites.
3. Prohibit carrying of firearms in area, restrict unnecessary access,
and patrol areas.
4. See No. 20.
-------
......... I'illlil'lJIllV'ir! ...... rim;anH
: % ..... ':>""'< •! ..... : *. . " ,* ' liiHiiiiii'ii!1 .u il ..... Jin11 ii ..... FSii "lam?, ait!,-
,j isnra ii ..... LM wart ..... iir': ,;;, '"":>,!' ;!| , .i
illlllllillEjE^iiilllll!!!!!!
•' •;!• iiiiiiiii'iii, , diiiSii £
O'fli :3mtm F-m
JillM^ illllll; lllillll:!( ii-MIKI1,. IIWL:!!!!
i linn i|iiii
iiiinni niiinii v i 1 1 iiiiiii i iiiinniii
,
lilllllill!lP'!l til "in '',:,' MMlllllb • I'lillllllllillf'llt ...... , ..... HI! VIJ'J ..... Illllill"
"' SI ' ,Fi ..... I'1'!, I'll! ' ' MITEllWi;!1" .i',!' I!'1'1 Ih*1!!"1!*:;,*" . J
j i:1""'!!,!!/""1 J ,f \iiiiii;S!' ir'iiiiii'!1' T ' ":"*n!i 'si!. > 1' iiu!,1!"1 n"iw\,, '
,, '!!..„•." 'li,, < ' ..... ! ,i '"Mmllklr 11.' i, ...... i'> '' " >< ":l,ii .iiV%iiiP4 1 ir
i'!;!iiil'li:i™iiiiiiilirVi1;;iE1^^ < "iiiiiiii
ftii'riJIIB'i'L'lii'nliii1 nflJ1"1! ' illl
"".m ..... jiiiiiiBi «' < ^v\i'"i " *' uiiiif!; 'ifiii Ijiiaiip T!? iiii''*"1- 'piiii ,'iii" fii'iii
''lltlllllBlBiii 'niiE'll kW'1! ..... 'ml ' JllBI'i'iffiill iinlinLlif,1" ' f I,!!1 >9i' IrtMJIIIIII
iJillinillllljillilill,, . ''ii,i i I"R I ...... f'^ ..... H ' 'Jj*" ;|li! • " ' "f t" 1 " ...... *it' i"il!»!:i 'ill 'iijjjjjjj* 'EUI""1'"1 «>' '". i; « J< J! ...... i • , 'EEllElw'E'UiE:, .......... r> ll'IM; ' E », , ' 'T!: ' E' "' , BjE ,'' IJ ' ppHFil! ........ EE ' ....... ii IIP1" ,,E "I E; ' i,,,, HE : '«innnnnnnnEE ., I hBBEB i1' , • ; ..... BE : j ', ' Es'-'BII ........ I ,E i, 4
' ' | 1 .ifl" Eh < .ill ' "I EjE EiE , <;9
II 111 IIIIIII I I IIIIIII
111 Illllllllllll Illlllllllllllll I II
I)
Illllllllllll 111
• 111 lllillll I II
II 111 IIIIIII I I III 111
Iiiinniii nil Illllllllllll ill ii in iiiiiiiiililiii iiiiiiiiiniiiliii ill iliiiiiiiiiiiiiiii inn ii ni nnin n 11 M nil M MI i i • v in iinniiM ini In i n ini i ill ni • i v gill nil i ini i n ni i i i IN ni ^ iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiniiiiiii
-------
SECTION 4
COUNTRY SPECIFIC
LAWS/BACKGROUND
-------
liiiiiii iiiiiiiii 111 i iiiiiiiiilii iiiiiiiliiii I in iiiiiii i inn in iiiiiiii 1111 ill in i iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii i 11 iiiiiii i in ill iiiiiliii 1111 iiiiiii iiiiiii ill iiiiiiH iiiiiiiiiiii 111111 iiiiiii ill i|i i i in HI 11 nil in i iiiiiiiiiiiiii i iiiiiii i
ill MI i in i iiiiiiiiiiii i iiiiiii linn in i mi i i MI mi i in i iii iiiiiiiii n i i ii in in n i ii 11
••i n i n in iiiiiii i mi i ii iiiiiiiili i in in
ill inn iiiiiii iiiiiii n in in n n in n in
111 Ii i iillli P ill 111 |l||||i||l 11 Iii I il Hi
in i i in 11 in iiiiiii i ii 11
I'I Illlllll l ii 11 ii III i in! ii II
i i i
in 11 ill ill
n i iiiiiii iiiiiii i i n iiiiiiiii iiiiiii i n i" i in
nil i iiiiiii in i ii iii 11 111 iiiiiii iiiiiiii iii i iinim ni 111
MI i iiiiii i in iii iiiiii
linn 11 ii ii iiiiiii iii ii
II Hill Illlllll III Illlllll
Illlllll 111 II Illlllll Illllllll 111 II Illlllll
Illlllll lllllHI Illllllll Illllllll IIIIIIIIIIII
11 II I IIIIIIIIIIII IIIIII II II IIIIII HI
I I 111 111 Illllllll i 1 11 i I Mi
mi I i 11 in I I II
11 111 I 111 IIIIIIIIIIII 111 IIIIIII 111 III II Illllllll Illllllll
IIIIIIIIIIII II I Illlllll III Illlllll 111 I Illllllll
11 IIIIIII IIII I 111 Illllllll 111
Illllllll 11111 Illllllll Illllllll 111 III)
........ Wrt
" it • i •, i ....... m .ai ..... •'•• A „. : i* ;ii •. ' nr
,r ,! ' "llllf ,,i i iBr i , ,» i ; ; M|f i 'ip, h •
-------
SELECTED ENVIRONMENTAL LAWS AND
REGULATIONS
4-1
-------
' i >li:i'i ' 'lllliil'l .liiil'UBi':!!; ;,< 4 ' I'!l ilf Hi1! f llllllliilillllllllllllllllE'l'J'ii;, ,p ''''IlllffllD'l!,'!, I1!!! JFfWtm WV JIKlill'«1,: 'liiili'ilJlili 4"" 'III,'; i, t..A, i!'"ip{ 'I!: ! filiMllli 'p,, : • 1''•;„ i ilillii ' ';!: . ' Jt !'!£,: NUK "111!'", '»,:" :i HIM": ll!, Ill'lUlii:; • ll! Witt' t1', fl* \,'!''' !''!' »/ I!!!!1'' '111!1 W 'Mil 1W£ A, 'I'" '< :"9!!' 111,1 :A ilPllllljllllH" '"illlttJ
.,, j i;-ii!,i jniij|!iir ii,,,'ijllinnjjiiins!1!:', iIMP **"***?M£V^S*"'!!'!''I!!1!'!ii ^• •:;|*'fi :\]-l|ISiil"!ill:::i!:i'lj: j',:^!'• I'.'^v,1 s?: ft^T'iT1-1W#: ^HSfv1"W.• i'i11"'""! IJ•|rH*^1'*!!• ^IHy11^"5!;:'t>f%;.;a
Mi;;1:;ipjERifi;, HI, ,!'i jjiiijisnjiir'ifiji^ aiiiiaiiiiiiiinia11; iaiai i vaaiiiiia.ii V"1,, aaiinaaia a aaaias; aiaanii * "laia :, i,"* a'aaiaan; iiiaiaiihiiia'piai,!: ail; IIP!;;!: a-f aiiaaap1 'aaiia" aaa;;;! »i '1W^ i! 'SIK
iliiillliilK :;. .il III. IIIIH^^ IliSII^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ fililin! 111I1III1i l<> IliifElil" ''I: «!':<• ' l:!l!:i."i • i i'lllllH "Si. "II -I1' I >! I1 .>•'.<:>"!! F> ""I lltiliittiib.!*.:.!1' Stlii'J WililE lilii'iiliK I IM^^ 'Hi!'J >••' -jJtllff^K:'.!,' ' • l^ililiifllilllllllll
I
•jti • ill •' i, ,' .. : i ' , :.' ':|",ili' " •. ' " ' ' '
-------
SELECTED U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL LAWS AND REGULATIONS
• Facts About the National Environmental Policy Act. U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency. September 1989.
• Council on Environmental Quality Regulations for Implementing the
Procedural Provisions of the National Environmental Policy Act. (Source: 40
Code of Federal Regulations Parts 1500 - 1508)
• Council on Environmental Quality Forty Most Asked Questions Concerning
CEQ's National Environmental Policy Regulations. (Source: 46 Federal
Register 18026 - 18038, March 23, 1981)
• EPA's Section 309 Review: The Clean Air Act and NEPA. U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency. March 1995
• Summaries of Related U.S. Environmental Laws. (Source: EPA, Cross-
Cutting Environmental Laws: A Guide for Federal/State Project Officers, 21E
4001, January 1991)
• States with Environmental Policy Acts. (Source: Council on Environmental
Quality. 1992. Environmental Quality. 22nd Annual Report)
• States with Limited Environmental Review Requirements Established by
Stature, Executive Order, or Other Administrative Directives. (Source:
Council on Environmental Quality. 1992. Environmental Quality. 22nd Annual
Report)
OTHER LAWS AND REGULATIONS
-------
I'!!! ..... K ...... iA^ ..... ^a^^^ ..... I: WE ..... ffin&im ..... El1- ..... Pill ..... iiiHiil
i i; i it:»',: •;;;•;; i ,;E: i is* ^niHicRh;, i j;:: inninniiii;;,, 'iiniiiiii;;11:,!!!1"!:,""\< i' 'mil'ijii:;,!;' nff ys';;;: ''j'liiiiiiini i1* . IETIIPI; " P'" ;;,, iu " •? 'FJIJ™ 7:1 i' ft iini'iii Jii| t -, r •:;' »• • t . i 114 §' ° "j,' IIIIIIIIB i| M msa .Araiii ;:i]|i;;i .aniiL •;; "T i*n; flu11' ^m,,,,;, [. is i:,i •;; i 11,11 ,,,IL' iiiiii i;: •FIIIIIIJIIH IIP i1111'1 <, •'";,. < • ;:i i;,;; ifi «> iiiiiiipr|>:"!|iiit f^jii.' , *&, 'i if i,1 fin YII ran" «ni it'siii':1: fli < iiriiiiii1:'•:; ws<:•'• ,"•'!' .rSi, 2
in,1 Illlllllr M I'lllli „, l|lillll'l|i|, ,"il':,'!!ll' "i| ill llJIIiir i|!li!i LUII"' III' hl'IMII !'iillilll I' lilll 'iLli'"lllll|p|l|lllllll|l|llllllll,|,i ' ,,,,"Pli ,'Illlllupllllll, *' illliflii'llXIM'''!!"!^!'!!*!!
gF'a ...... ^
g^i^iggggggggg^^ ..... iiiKimiLiiiiin' ..... a*,;1!, ••M
ii, n imni ni'iii•' '.ii t • .iifiiiiiiiiiE'iinn'.iunii ini i inn ifPi1 < "f i n 1*11111111 I||LI ' i
,!11,,1 Mil:i'l!|i,I'll: Jim:
""f;, I'1!'!?!1'1"'",!!'."':!' MI Jlf "I!!!!11" ,„*"! lii..^,',!,' 'i, ; ' i|; 1 nHKIi. ll!lllllllllill!i!iill!li,!!!!i SCTIIIIBL ^I'.
'IBIBIlBBBBBBlEB'B ,' '' HIB "i B B"!' ';;', B! ,• BBk1 B'B.BI! Ill1
.,!•
liiiii'ii'ii "i"''?!^'!!'''!!'!!!^^!!!'''" WF'i'f"'!iit,," '.,r , ' iiiii"''K iiiiiiijiiKif'1 ii
iii, P "iiiii1 :':i" ,m ' < i1" jidii ....... ' ': liiiiiiiiiiiii i , i, : !,.,< iiii'i'i'ii! K ni ii ff >: : iiiiiiniiiiiiiiiiiiiiif liiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii: i ,i JiiH'i'i v i >.,i iiini 'iiF >: ''iiiiiininiTii1, Mjiiiiji niniiiiiiii1 ":!' ""< t f \ \, T, i i ...... ' ° .1 ..... iJiiiibjiiiii 'ih an:1 >, ; ill ii « " "v", 't "Tii' i'1 'r :yi:iiisdiiiiiiii IP ii ftim» iiiiiii1' .miiniii ,!« , , ,
ii! ' ll'i'lillli;,:' ": '"I,1,'1'! n i1 IBIIIllli1 1 "l! i il ''iJ1 "'VliiB inn" iiri'lllliir « BlflBBl"SBBi|liii illlfli I:l',illl!ll.i||li:ili|l|i ..... "''''i-iBBIIIIiMiTJii'lllB ,<: Jk I'liiBi'lliJiE'if i'i BBr-i'iBBiiB1' T "i* <\,;\ ..... siiiiiiigiiniiii ..... iniii":1, iiiniii ...... i ..... 11111111111 ;;n ...... yriiiDmiiiii!"!!!' ..... ..... ..... : 1:1;; ....... .iinn ....... iM"1*" :»]'„,« : I':I,HI< "i'jin, vinii xfm:* ....... iiii'Miiiiiiii:;! ..... niE'fJH ..... ;| ...... iinniiiiiiiiiijniiiiiiBiifiiiitiJBiiiiB <:i|nii9ijji:ii!iiiji!:!l,,ii!iiii:|iiilii, ; "i .lil''''^'*!1"!!!! i 'i1'1' ""'i ......... ;«f I'lDiinii'li i!'" iii> !i. .i:!::: I'll!!1 "' '-,** ""'Siii ' I'- ''iii "iv1!11?1 'i'"';; i< ..... iki'i1"!" .riiiinninnii !> ''iMiiiii':!11:1 ..... ::!i|ii|i,:i«i'l!'ii ......
Illnil1 ilPBBIBPiiPPHIi'Bli'B'illB'PPBPii:
''liiii'iiifiliiiiiib "i1 jiUdlllilll Illi'"11',!!!!!"*! 'Mil, ,,ln, 'BIP'I! Pi.PPli f '!!' ni:"1 "ilB;**": PliPnliliiiiPPi!!!1 "' I111' BPIi'Bl ,ji IBP ilKiilllil' r', Jt i!iPiiniilnP:in9ni::PlVlhn~,!||Pi:B!PPPPihlPPiiiplt:,:,!:« BBBBI!1"!1 BBBIBli ,11 BB,'','','BIBBBB IB II III! ;iBiBB!li,BBB'B,Bi,B!, BBinB, mi BB,,,'1 ,i,, B, ' B ,,"! iB,/BB,BBB!BiBBBiBBBBBk:l BiBBBIIILi B/BBBBB
liii: !" I! : h' '" if I iEiiiiiiili '' it
, , I!1" ii i ' !!i" : i i!!!!!':!!!!iinii!!i!!!!!i!!!!!!:>!: ( ',„,, "? ,'!!!!"'!' '! \ '' '" , ' ,:> "" i!" ll! 1: '!n> 'li, "' I!11!!:!' iiilligi!!!':!?'1!1!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!,, ' 'lili!!!"1'! li!!!: ' T: ' 'iiii!!!
BBEB IB!Bi;E : IIIBilBilillllBijIBBIII IIHIBliB1 iilliinBIIIBIIk BP BBBBBiill lliilllliHIIIPIl'i. ' IBMBilB ,,ni "En UBBp ,1,! BEE1 BE BUB ,IE „•!!!. 'Vili:"ni'i , i< ,< BBH" illlBii" IS!,, I "P1::1 B >' ':i ..... ill ...... !l!ll,|i||!lllil!li..i .lilllllllllllllllllllVi'fiiiilJIIII'illllllli'l; ^nili:!; ....... ii:*!!:1!! ..... iilllllilillinlRHif mill ..... Iliiiilir:. i?!!!i iJlli!" ..... ' ''"lill!',!;!:;; | ...... #*9i&'WEIJiM. ul^JUUJH ..... !J!,' il"' uTMDfc,'. •H.y.HtJOTl' ' ....... | ..... ::#*> :, ..... ..... ,P , ni ........ ".."I'Li".:!!:,!!" ..... .."'ini:' ....... i' ,.' ..... i" ,1'r.r:. ............ ii;" /j', ' u,niiii' iv • ...... in., ,i,
EBB:! IB,IBB BBBBI
IlillllliBBlIBB "' HI;: : BBBi BIB BIB BBUBB JBBiBIIIII B ' Bi • I! ,' ,; < BBBBk.B fill' ,E,BPEBB,EBEEk B, ,Bi!B!B,B BIBB BIB BBIIBB BBiliIlllBBIIIB 'Bk B" i,B,BBBB liBrBIB « lk,>iB ' ' , BBB IB k n« ; iBBI BBBB,'i
-------
United States September
Environmental Protection 1989
Agency
Enforcement & Compliance Monitoring (LE-133)
SEPA Facts About
The National
Environmental
Policy Act
The National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA),
[42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.J, was signed into law on
January 1,1970. The Act establishes national
environmental policy and goals for the
protection, maintenance, and enhancement of
the environment and it provides a process for
implementing these goals within the federal
agencies. The Act also establishes the Council
on Environmental Quality (CEQ).
NEPA Requirements
Title I of NEPA contains a Declaration of
National Environmental Policy which requires
the federal government to use all practicable
tngflng to create and maintain conditions under
which man and nature can exist in productive
harmony. Section 102 requires federal agencies
to incorporate environmental considerations in
their planning and decision-making through a
systematic interdisciplinary approach.
Specifically, all federal agencies are to prepare
detailed statements assessing the environmental
impact of and alternatives to major federal
actions significantly affecting the environment.
These statements are commonly referred to as
environmental impact statements (EISs). Section
102 also requires federal agencies to lend
appropriate support to initiatives and programs
designed to anticipate and prevent a decline in
the quality of mankind's world environment
Title n of NEPA establishes the Council on
Environmental Quality (CEQ) and requires the
President to transmit to Congress, with the
assistance of CEQ, an annual Environmental
Quality Report on the state of the environment
Oversight Of NEPA
The Council on Environmental Quality, which is
headed by a fulltime Chairperson, oversees
NEPA. A staff assists the Council. The duties
and functions of the Council are listed in Title
n, Section 204 of NEPA and include: gathering
information on the conditions and trends in
environmental quality; evaluating federal
programs in light of the goals established in
Title I of the Act; developing and promoting
national policies to improve environmental
quality; and conducting studies, surveys,
research, and analyses relating to ecosystems
and environmental quality.
Printodcn fttcyttto Ptptf
4-5
-------
Illllllllllll II I 111 11 III I 111 III lllllll
Implementation
;,;:;==,;.,,; ^£ In!178 CEQ promulgated regulations [40 CFR
^:,;;nSir.lMts ISflfclgOS] implementing NEPA which are
binding on all federal agencies. The regulations
';"|:;;": ^Diddx£$is the procedural provisions of NEPA and
sSii1 S"£&S administration of the NEPA process,
including preparation of EISs. To date, the only
change in the NEPA regulations occurred on
May 27,1986, when CEQ amended Section
502.22 of its regulations to clarify how agencies
ire to carry out their environmental evaluations
situations where information is incomplete or
^^=:: ;; -" • unavalabe,,
CEQ has also issued guidance on various
of the regulations including: an
~~, -r:=zrr r ::.::::„:: ^r.~ ...... nformation document on "Forty Most Asked
; Questions ...... Coaserning CEQ's Notional
Policy Act", Scoping Guidance,
iriirtB'J
..... fiegarding NEPA Regulations.
|=^^^^^^^^^ |
" ......... '• ................ ' ........ .......... ......... .................... '""" ....... ' ...........
ionally, most federal agencies have
ilgated their own NEPA regulations and
idance which generally follow the CEQ
ocedures but are tailored for the specific
... mission ami activities of the agency.
The NEPA Process
i:. :=" '.-:'1.'*"-"! 'The NEPA process consists of an evaluation of •
".;' '; ™iri1',;:'' ;;;"""'~"",,,tilie environmental effects of a federal
undertaking including its alternatives. There are
three levels of analysis depending on whether or
not an undertaking could significantly affect the
._ , , i ,, environment Tjigse thrgg levels, include:
categorical exclusion determination; preparation
of an environmental assessment/finding of no
significant impact (EA/FONSr); and preparation
, ];,;;,, of an environmental impact statement (EIS).
:::*—'2 At the first level, an undertaking may be
:;:'::ji ' "categorically excluded from a detailed
environmental analysis if it meets certain
^j^^^S^^^SEjl federal agency has previously
determined as having no significant
, environmental impact. A number of agencies
have developed lists of actions which are
~ly categorically excluded from
"as, under, .their NEPA
t the second level of analysis, a federal
prepares a written environmental
"(2SJ to determine whether or not a
T^fz^r:::—,::: ::::::: i-ied.eisi,,undertaking would significantly affect
SSiSiSis Hnvmmmant. ffthg answer |§ ng, fee agency
issues a finding of no significant impact
i.,^ iii^ii^
(FONSI). The FONSI may address measures
which an agency will take to reduce (mitigate)
potentially significant impacts.
If the EA determines that the environmental
consequences of a proposed federal undertaking
may be significant, an EIS is prepared. An EIS is
a more detailed evaluation of the proposed
action and alternatives. The public, other federal
agencies and outside parties may provide input
into the preparation of an EIS and then
comment on the draft EIS when it is completed.
If a federal agency anticipates that an
undertaking may significantly impact the
environment, or if a project is environmentally
controversial, a federal agency may choose to
prepare an EIS without having to first prepare
anEA.
After a final EIS is prepared and at the time of
its decision, a federal agency will prepare a
public record of its decision addressing how the
findings of the EIS, including consideration of
alternatives, were incorporated into the agency's
decision-making process.
During the latter half of the 1980s,
approximately 450 draft and final EISs were
prepared annually on federal actions. During
that same period between 10,000 and 20,000
EAs were prepared annually.
EA And EIS Components
An EA is described in Section 1508.9 of the
Council's NEPA regulations. Generally, an EA
includes brief discussions of the following: the
need for the proposal; alternatives (when there
is an unresolved conflict concerning alternative
uses of available resources); the environmental
impacts of the proposed action and alternatives;
and a listing of agencies and persons consulted.
An EIS, which is described in Part 1502 of the
regulations, should include discussions of the
purpose of and need for the action, alternatives,
the affected environment, the environmental
consequences of the proposed action, lists of
preparers, agencies, organizations and persons
to whom the statement is sent, an index, and an
appendix (if any).
.'
Federal Agency Roles
The role of a federal agency in the NEPA
process depends on the agency's expertise and
relationship to the proposed undertaking. The
agency carrying out the federal action is
with the requirement
. IE ii!iiiii:ii..i;.iiiiE
lIlilillllHIIli a •• '*l! «' !!lliliillui»iiiii i! iPlilillili!«»' liiiiiiiiiiiiii iii'Miiii' 'i i '" •'" • ''»"" • >• ,;; ; ;; , , , , : ' , ' :\ j „„,„„„
., , , ; • uii' i;,.'':: ,''" *,, MM i
IliiililllilBlliilliiJIIilllllia
iinr.!,!!!!!!,;;:! iiiiinlniiip.,.:
-------
of NEPA. In some cases, there may be more
one federal agency involved in an undertaking.
In this situation, a lead agency is designated to
supervise preparation of the environmental
analysis. Federal agencies, together with state or
local agencies, may act as joint lead agencies.
A federal agency having special expertise with
respect to an environmental issue or jurisdiction
by law may be a cooperating agency in the
NEPA process. A cooperating agency has the
responsibility to assist the lead agency by
participating in the NEPA process at the earliest
possible time; by participating in the scoping
process; in developing information and
preparing environmental analyses including
portions of the environmental impact statement
concerning which the cooperating agency has
special expertise; and in making available staff
support at the lead agency's request to enhance
the lead agency's interdisciplinary capabilities.
Under Section 1504 of CEQ's NEPA
regulations, federal agencies may refer to CEQ
interagency disagreements concerning proposed
federal actions that might cause unsatisfactory
environmental effects. CEQ's role, when it
accepts a referral, is generally to develop
findings and recommendations, consistent with
the policy goals of Section 101 of NEPA. The
referral process consists of certain steps and is
carried out within a specified time frame.
In deciding whether or not to refer an action,
an agency must consider the extent of potential
adverse environmental impacts including:
possible violation of national environmental
standards or policies, severity, geographical
scope, duration, importance as precedents, and
availability of environmentally preferable
alternatives. A referring agency must advise the
lead agency of its intention to refer the matter to
CEQ and notify CEQ. In advising the lead
agency, the referring agency will address the
reasons for the referral and recommendations for
remedying the situation. If the lead agency does
not satisfactorily respond to the referral agency,
then the matter is forwarded to CEQ. CEQ may
take several actions to resolve the situation
including:
• Discussing the matter with both agencies.
• Holding public meetings to obtain additional
information.
• Determining that the issue is not of national
importance and that the agencies should
proceed with their decision-making.
• Publishing its findings and recommendations.
• Submitting (when appropriate) the referral
and its recommendations to the President for
action. Although not binding, CEQ's
recommendations cany weight and influence.
Agencies generally follow CEQ's guidance.
EPA's Role
The Environmental Protection Agency, like
other federal agencies, prepares and reviews
NEPA documents. However, EPA has a unique
responsibility in the NEPA review process.
Under Section 309 of the Clean Air Act, EPA is
required to review and publicly comment on the
environmental impacts of major federal actions
including actions which are the subject of EISs.
If EPA determines that the action is
environmentally unsatisfactory, it is required by
Section 309 to refer the matter to CEQ. In the
period between 1974 to 1989, there were 24
referrals to CEQ, of which 14 were submitted by
EPA. EPA's 309 review process is described at
the end of this pamphlet
Also, in accordance with a Memorandum of
Agreement between EPA and CEQ, EPA carries
out the operational duties associated with, the
administrative aspects of the EIS filing process.
The Office of Federal Activities in EPA has been
designated the official recipient in EPA of all
EISs prepared by federal agencies.
The Public's Role
The public has an important role in the NEPA
process, particularly during scoping, in
providing input on what issues should be
addressed in an EIS and in commenting on the
findings in an agency's NEPA documents. The
public can participate in the NEPA process by
attending NEPA-related hearings or public
meetings and by submitting comments directly
to the lead agency. The lead agency must take
into consideration all comments received from
the public and other parties on NEPA
documents during the comment period.
NEPA And Other Environmental Laws
The NEPA review takes into consideration the
effect that an action may have on various
aspects of the environment. Some of these areas,
such as impacts on endangered species and
cultural resources, are also covered by other
environmental laws including the Endangered
4-7
-------
Species Act, the National Historic Preservation
Act, etc. To reduce paperwork and avoid delays
in the decision-making process, federal agencies
must, to the fullest extent possible, integrate the
NEPA review with the analytic and consultation
requirements of these other environmental laws.
The NEPA review also takes into
consideration whether a federal undertaking is
in compliance with statutes such as the Clean
Water Act and the Clean Air Act In these cases,
the lead agency would consult with the agencies
overseeing these statutes to ensure compliance
i«3th any criteria and standards promulgated
under these laws.
alterations in project design, location or
operation; agency consideration of a greater
range of alternatives; implementation of
mitigation measures; and enhanced opportunity
for public involvement in the decision-making
process. An additional benefit has been a
reduction of some project costs because of
changes made in projects. The NEPA review
process has also enabled agencies to address
compliance with other environmental laws as
part of a single review process rather than
separate reviews under each law, thereby
reducing the amount of paperwork, staff time,
and effort
;' Integration Into Federal Decision-Making
]:::::;:;;:: ;;--• -:::;.;fTJhe CEQ NEPA regulations require federal
agencies to make the environmental review
"' ' " ' '" ''documents and any comments and responses a
part of the record in formal rulemaking and
adjudicatory proceedings. These documents
must also accompany the proposal through the
federal agency's review process. In malting its
S^jEH, ii'jik decision on a proposal, an agency must consider
a full range of alternatives including ones
ated in Jhe NEPA review,
Jf"! Most federal agencies have promulgated
:!21 "NEPA regulations which address how the NEPA
~~ be incorporated into their various
Agencies are encouraged to prepare
Jjrgajl EJSs ggvering policy or programmatic
•;';;•• actions and to tier subsequent NEPA reviews to
individual actions included within the program
" y" For legislative proposals, the NEPA
is integrated with the legislative process
Congress. Federal agencies are required to
i^v",™,^™ - ™in^grate the NEPA review early in program or
•" |IL| li jji! !" "m" '"project planning. In Ae preparation of EISs, the
!!!= scoping process provides for early identification
and consideration of environmental issues and
alternatives.
The Benefits Of NEPA
State NEPAs
NEPA has caused federal agencies to incorporate
environmental values in their decision-making.
For most agencies, the NEPA review is now an
Integral part of program planning. To oversee
compliance with NEPA, many agencies have
organized multi-disciplinary staffs. The primary
benefit has been more protection for the
environment in federal undertakings. This has
come about because of the NEPA review process
and resultant changes in projects, such as
Following the passage of NEPA, which only
applies to federal actions, a number of states
passed laws which incorporate consideration of
environmental effects into state actions. Many of
the state NEPAs, or "little NEPAs" as they are
commonly called, are modelled after the federal
NEPA. Presently, 11 states have passed laws
with comprehensive environmental review
requirements. Fourteen states have limited
environmental review requirements established
by executive order or other administrative
directives.
EPA's "309" Review Process
Section 309 of the Clean Air Act states:
(a) "The Administrator shall review and
comment in writing on the environmental
impact of any matter relating to duties and
responsibilities granted pursuant to this chapter
or other provisions of the authority of the
Administrator, contained in any (1) legislation
proposed by any federal department or agency.
(2) newly authorized federal projects for
construction and any major federal agency
action (other than a project for construction) to
which Section 4332 (2) (C) of this title applies.
and (3) proposed regulations published by any
department or agency of the federal government
Such written comment shall be made public at
the conclusion of any such review.
(b) In the event the Administrator determines
that any such legislation, action, or regulation is
unsatisfactory from the stand-point of public
health or welfare or environmental quality, he
shall publish his determination and the matter
shall be referred to the Council on
Environmental Quality."
4-8
-------
This Section was added to the Clean Air Act
in 1970, at the time the NEPA was passed and
EPA was formed. The rationale was that the
EISs that federal agencies would be developing
under NEPA should have an independent.
review and that the newly formed EPA should
perform it
EPA developed implementing procedures in
1971 to carry out this responsibility and, in
conjunction with the CEQ, has since refined
these procedures. Operating procedures are
contained in the manual, Policies and
Procedures for the Review of Federal Actions
Impacting the Environment (revised in 1984).
In accordance with these operating
procedures, EPA reviews, comments, and makes
the comments available to the public, on all
federal draft and final EISs, proposed
environmental regulations, and other proposed
major actions EPA considers to have significant
environmental effects. EPA has reviewed all of
the draft and final EISs prepared by federal
agencies since the passage of NEPA.
The major elements of the 309 review process
include the following:
• EPA reviews and comments on both the
adequacy of the analysis and the environmental
impacts of the proposed action itself.
• EPA comments on issues related to its "duties
and responsibilities", which include all
environmental media (i.e., air, water, etc.),
methodologies related to media-impact
assessment, and areas related to its regulatory
responsibilities.
• EPA comments on potential violation of or
inconsistency with national environmental
standards and determines whether adequate
information has been provided to
assess potential environmental impacts of the
proposed action.
• In general, the degree to which the Agency
gets involved in attempting to modify a
proposed project depends on the level of
environmental impacts, the ability and
willingness of the proposng federal agency to
mitigate those impacts, and the level of
responsibility EPA has over the type of impact
at issue.
• If the action is a federal project to be located
in or on a specific site, the appropriate EPA
regional office has die jurisdiction and delegated
responsibility for carrying out the Section 309
CAA review and working with the proposing
federal agency to resolve any problems. If the
action by the proposing federal
. department/agency is legislative or regulatory,
generally the Section 309 CAA review will be
conducted directly in EPA headquarters.
• For federal-project cases, EPA headquarters
becomes involved if the region finds that the
proposed action in the draft EIS is
"environmentally unsatisfactory", or that the
draft EIS is "inadequate" to assess the
potentially significant environmental impacts of
proposed actions. In these cases, headquarters
must approve the regional comment letter before
it is sent In addition, EPA headquarters works
with regional personnel in informing interested
parties about the EPA action and will assist the
region, as needed, in meeting with the
proposing federal agency to resolve the issues.
The CEQ is always notified of a draft EIS which
has been rated "unsatisfactory" or "inadequate"
by EPA.
• If the region finds that the subsequent final
EIS is still "environmentally unsatisfactory", the
region recommends to the Administrator that
the matter be referred to the CEQ for resolution.
At this time, EPA headquarters becomes
significantly involved in the factual
determination and judgment on the EIS.
• The process is carried out so as to ensure the
independence of the EPA review responsibilities
and to coordinate in a manner which
emphasizes consultation with the lead agency
and informing interested parties of EPA actions
and concerns.
4-9
-------
'MB?" it/^'aj'^iiii^^^^
t!Kinii:'mmmlaK 11 IKV^^^^^ ii iiiiii
ii »:7ij!iilk^ ;K • iivf lijiin ilium • Hiiiiiiiiiiii",11"!-, ti iiii- iii'ii
i!".i!ii,n,' ,',11 ?:in;:!ii|ii,il!iiniiiii!iiii« i
..... JIB; >ii, "f ...... ^.''MM' THI "lo1" ....... TUP Jiiini:: Vi i!*' -i Pifiiii i isp
: iiiipiii: ii» ' i,; "iiiiiii1*'1 ', ,„, iibiiiiii' j " ' '"iiiii"'1']' ii :ni ?' "ff' ii:uii if i jjiiiiiil'1'1"1 iiiiii Jiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii •" i< jiliiii >!, ,! , liiHiiii1' !^ il;ii|iliill,!i .' '.I,, 1 iifiiipipiiii »'L Jili ,i "Pif i1; iilSrl, ..... • JJii illl
Li;ii:i,SE^
..... LI- :M> BE ,;;i>i; ..... :.:< ..... iiiiiiH mi, , imr MIIE" 'KJIIIIIB; ....... i iiiaiii11! iiiaiipi1' iiiiRiiiiiwi1!1)!!:, <\m: "u : ..... i lu*!.1. ;•>'• ..... "si ...... iiii" ....... ,v: ..... m: ...... :i ..... vmim ...... ..... H ...... "I ..... K : '!»!! ..... llilS /:::, >i- /'Ai ....... 1't'if1 IHK d!*;! ' ::;':<> 'Nit!
li^^^^^^^^
I2Li:":MVfl!.l HN]*'KhTjfflA
"i11 li1'1'! i'l i,]j' Jiiiiii1' i!!:;i:i|iiiiiJ!i;!i:iiii|iiiJ1
V""" ,!,' 'if luiiinnniliii, '"'";. Jii "'''iiiiifv'ii, !» >uiiii:j' Ji
11!:• '.„!'lii'!;'!1"'i!""'5" <""''!"f!i;*j*'ii1'!!!!'!;,i''''
""'"''"'
!:liu
11!H^^^^^ iilllH^^^
"1 ' '
"' '"" I ' \ \ N'" *"' i \ ' ™ *""" " \ i iiii™'TN""
ii'1 'JRvVSfflli'
......... lilli'I ....... I'JiN ....... IIBIM; '';v!
,,i !^MW«J m\ mm. mm i 111 immi • ^
tarnm ra^^^^^^^^^^
Vi« i, -i;:!!!!1111 Ji !:; I,!1!"!,1
iisiitilnv^^
>;i|iiil^^^ •!•
' I'll I,!1'1,,,, »i.™ y|il7 i!«t 'I' III, iiilPlllipilll'illiP'IT1 " ,'!' ""IIIIII"
i > i:1ii:.l;i,;:N<:: ........ ii1, L"':I ca iliii 1 'i''1!!!'1 iiiin '
^^^^^^^^
M J1 iiilliifllljijliailfi; i 'llllllfJP'filllF ' llilllllllllllli'i,! iiri'i'llF liil'failllllilliJIIiilMSfii*'"1 KM1 ]j| f!"!'!! Jiy "ij!"il,!j l,,:;!||i "i if I !„ <'' IPPii I1 i,,;,:i!l H',,,,1!!1' ,:"i.il!li;l 'I'Einh'iilillii '", ,|ii,,|l|P,llPn,;" , t»t,' PP«~'iiiillllllllll!lll1llll«Plili«i«ll'' < ii Pn "rtIPP:!" "VHPaPPP'PpiP'i'WIiP11! .iiilKPilJIli'"'" v 'uiflTiiJW VW. VLIttf ,"' '"l.hililniillll HlilLi 'P:i
1f,nf'IJIII'lPiJjj'JiJjjjjJi'iJjjilijI; SS!!!!!™"!!!" • ' I!!!;!!!!!','Tfly"?"iisi;,!!!!!'!!!!!!!!!'!'"!."'' '; ''!'.!!;!;;!,„ I'!!!!!!!'!!!!!!!!!«!i'"/'lir f\ Jfl" ''iiiitm':^^'!!!.!^'!!'!'!!'!''"'"!'!! / 'I'11" illil'li'iPKliPi'ilil'llllPii'i •{> ^W• !'»'"« F \«'»«!!!» ,! ivnnniinnninnnniinnpii ; 1'iPPiij ' iPiiiPi.'iPiini'nniiPiiiiJiiiLH aifis!, ',,,'i IB,,,!*!,iflijfi" ,n.' in1;;:!jn',„M 11 ",'>;;ii;;iiniiii'Liiiii
, iPill'I'fi:*,: 11 f IKiilSlinnilHii:,'' P' ,l!i"!' l11» ""ill,1 H K/ ,S\V" i Pll,'», iIlK;!1"1 lillllUi'" i:,!' !
-------
Council on Environmental Quality Regulations for Implementing the
Procedural Provisions of the National Environmental Policy Act
(Source: 40 Code of Federal Regulations Parts 1500 - 1508)
4-11
-------
*:" li:*1""'''"* '"'"
iiiJilfllK 'M ilillllll Hi X ill':!'!' HI!,;,.I'll1," MBiti,!!11'!! "
111:''i'1"'-1 !IH'' " ' ' ' '""'"'I'1"''I'1"1"" ;" I-"1'1" -'I i!:1:™!!"!
lill'KBl 'I1:!!1',Tin'If IIIIIIII • "! Ill'IIF
aii:uiiiL;:i I " &Sri»J\Sf
|!'::!:a*L '''««! <;t\.i
I •'. ,: II,.JiiE ,1111 1, lii
^^^^ 'ii'1 !"s ..... •mi:1:1; ' 'nil iiiiiiiiiiii . " ,
^ , :!>
i/'jiii!! ;i#'-w^^^ ii
ijSi:^M'immm M» tV'isrtKitf aii If mm:> (JoiwtfM Mlf
*^* j^'''5-w**!:" -* ?*•• '•; • '*'•' ««f '-*»$ •• 'mwAi-.w IK i«:i«^ ff&a mt:S m * J'»rii.' i,;" ji 'i. i ^ !• •;' ^
,.JB !v:i9I II :M^ "M
.(1/vyiBW ft*'.«WiF;*»(TO'l
• in si :i ffioaim ! >:•£::, iiiiiij;!' m: .)'
,!
:li!v
111 Ill i Nlllll (illliliiiill lliMill in11
ui in i mi ji i| ,i in ,iii i, ii jij iinj ,,11,111 i, ,,|,
iii i in ii nil nii|i i ii iii 11, in in ii
•'" .' » i ' ' ' « '"irii' ' ' i in i
1 n I' I1 In1 " III I"! 1 Mill HI Ii i III ii 111 111 II iilllli ii ||||ll|i|| i 111 1 I 111J | lillliiilllilllillilllllH I nil 11 ||ii||| in i I) iiiiiiiiiii llii||l| ii|||||||||||||||||||||||iii||||
i inn iiii •iiiiiii ill
11 iiiiiiii i
•ii
I iln II
Ml i II 111 II IIIIIIIIIIII illllill
iiiii iiii in i iiiiiii ii iiii
-------
FORTY MOST ASKED QUESTIONS CONCERNING
CEQ*S NATIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL
POLICY ACT REGULATIONS
The Council on Environmental Quality published answers
to the "forty most asked questions concerning CEQ's
National Environmental Policy Act Regulations* in toe
March 23, 1981 Federal Register (46 PR 18026-18038).
The answers to the questions were prepared by the General
Counsel of CEQ in consultation with the Office of Federal
Activities of EPA. The answers do not impose any
additional requirements beyond those of the NEPA
regulations but are meant to provide aid in the practical
application of the regulations. The subjects covered by the
40 questions are as follows:
1. Range of alternatives
2. Alternatives outside the capability of applicant or
jurisdiction of agency
3. No action alternative
4. Preferred alternative of the agency
S. Proposed action vs. piefciied alternative
6. Environmentally preferable alternative
7. Difference Lelwcui sections of EIS on alternatives
^fflfl CHVTH >flm^H'tsM COlUCOOCflCCV
8. Early application of NEPA
9. Applicant who needs other permits
10. Limitations on action during 30-day review period
for final EIS
11. Limitations on actions by an applicant during FT5
process
12. Effective date and enforceabflity of the regulations
13. Use of scoping before notice of intent to prepare EIS
14. Rights and responsibilities of lead and cooperating
agencies
IS. Commenting responsibilities of EPA
16. Third party contracts
17. Disclosure statement to avoid conflict of interest
18. Uncertainties about indirect effects of a proposal
19. Mitigation measures
20. Worst case analysis
21. Combining environmental afy^ planning dflctiin***^**
22. State and federal agencies as joint lead agencies
23. Conflicts of federal proposal win land use plans, on
policies and controls
24. Environmental impact statements on policies, plans
25. Appendices and incorporation by reference
26. lintel •«< keyword hvitec in PTS«
27. List of preparen
28. Advance or photocopies of EIS
29. Responses to comments
30. Adoption of EISs
31. Application of regulations to independent regulatory
agencies
32. Supplements to old EISs
33.
34.*
35.
36.
37.
38.
39.
40.
Referrals
Records of decision
Time required for the NEPA process
Environmental assessments (EA)
Findings of no r'finiP"*1"' impact (FONSI)
Public availability of EAs vs. FONSIs
Mitigation measures imposed in EAs and FONSIs
Propriety of issuing EA when mitigation reduces
impacts
QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS
to. Q. What is meant by "range of alternatives' as referred
to in Section 1505.1(e)?
A. The phrase "range of alternatives" refers to the
alternatives discussed in environmental documents. It
includes ill reasonable alternatives which must be
rigorously explored and objectively evaluated, as well as
those other alternatives which are eliminated from detailed
study with a brief discussion of the reasons for eliminating
them (Section 1502.14). A decision maker must not
consider alternatives beyond the range of alternatives
discussed in the relevant environmental ,
-------
II":
i
partic
lar
include those
that are practical or feasible from the t'"'hnktl and
''Economic ^"iKMH^iii'T, ft«tflg eonunon imff*i rather thyn
those simply desirable from the standpointof the applicant.
2b. Q. Must the E1S analyze alternatives outside the
Jurisdiction or capability of the agency or beyond what
Congress h«« authorized?
iiiin^^ ...... mims, ....... amat ....... i
-------
agencies can identity this official in this implementing
procedures, pursuant to Section 1507.3.
Even though the preferied alternative of the agency
is yfrn+rfi*** by the EIS preparer in the EIS, the •titfmfnt
must be objectively prepared and not slanted to support the
choice of the preferred alternative of the agency over the
other reasonable and feasible alternatives.
5a. Q. Is the "proposed action" the same thing as the
"ptefeiieU alternative"?
A. The "proposed action" may be, but is not necessarily,
the "preferred alternative of the agency. The proposed
action may be a proposal in its initial form before
undergoing analysis in the EIS process. If the proposed
action is internally generated, such as preparing a land
management plan, the proposed action might end up as the
preferred alternative of the agency. On the other hand, the
proposed action may be granting an application to a
nonfederal entity for a permit. The agency may or may not
have a "preferred alternative" at the draft EIS stage (see
Question 4 above). In that case, the agency may decide at
the final EIS stage, on tfae basis of the draft EIS and the
public and agency comments, that an alternative other than
the proposed action is the "preferred alternative" of the
agency.
5b. Q. Is tfae analysis of the "proposed action" in an EIS
to' be treated differently from the analysis of alternatives?
A. The degree of analysis devoted to each alternative in the
EIS is to be substantially similar to **"> devoted to the
"proposed action*. Section 1501.3 is tided, "Alternatives
included in the proposed action," to reflect such
comparable treatment, Section 1502.14(9b) specifically
requires "substantial treatment" in the EIS of each
alternative, including the proposed action. This regulation
does not dictate an amount of information to be provided,
but rather prescribes a level of treatment which may, in
turn, require varying amounts of information to enable a
reviewer to evaluate and compare alternatives.
6s. Q. What is the meaning of the term **n"if'nrj«*Ttfiifly
preferable alternative", as used in the regulations with
reference to records of decision? How is the term "envi-
ronment" used in the phrase?
A. Section 1505.2(b) requires that, m eases where an EIS
has been prepared, the record of decision (ROD) must
identify all alternatives that were considered, "...
specifying the alternative or alternatives which were
considered to be environmentally preferable." The
environmentally preferable alternative is tfae alternative that
wffl promote tfae national environmental policy as expressed
in NEPA, Section 101. Ordinarily, this means the
alternative that causes the least damage to the biological
and physical environment; it also means tfae alternative
which best protects, preserves, and •*•*****•* historic,
cultural, and natural resources.
The Council recognizes that the identification of the
environmentally preferable alternative may involve dtftv^ifc
judgments, particularly when one environmental value must
be balanced against another. The public and other agencies
reviewing a draft EIS can assist the lead agency to develop
and determine environmentally preferable alternatives by
providing their views in comments on the draft EIS.
Through the identification of the environmentally preferable
alternative, the decision maker is clearly faced with a
choice between that alternative and others, and must
consider whether the decision accords with the
Congressionally declared policies of the act
6fo. Q. Who recommends or determines that which is
environmentally preferable?
A. The agency EIS staff is encouraged to make
recommendations of the environmentally preferable
alternatives) during EIS preparation. In any event, the lead
agency official responsible for the EIS is encouraged to
identify the environmentally preferable alternative^) in the
EIS. In all casei, comments from other agencies and the
public are also encouraged to address mis question. The
agency must identify the environmentally preferable
alternative in the ROD.
7. Q. What is the difference between the sections in the
ESS on "alternatives" and "environmental consequences"?
How do you avoid duplicating the discussion of alternatives
in preparing these two sections?
A. The "alternatives" section is the heart of the EIS. This
section rigorously explores and objectively evaluates an
reasonable alternatives, including the proposed action
(Section 1502.14). It should include relevant comparisons
on environmental and other grounds. The "environmental
consequences" section of the EIS discusses the specific
environmental impacts or effects of each of the alternatives,
including the proposed action (Section 1502.16). In order
to avoid duplication between these two sections, most of
the "alternatives" section should be devoted to describing
and comparing the alternatives. Discussion of the
environmental impacts of these alternatives should be
limited to a concise, descriptive summary of such impacts
in a comparative form, including charts or tables, thus
sharply defining the iinift and providing a clear basis for
choice among options (Section 1502.14). The
"environmental consequences* section should be devoted
largely to a scientific analysis of the direct and indirect
environmental effects of the proposed action and of each of
the alternatives. ft forms the analytic basis for the concise
comparison in the "alternatives" section.
4-15 t
-------
«. Q. Section ...... 1501 ^«KTier mni u»»l5'i«ig «pplv-«ttf«' rmnmprft~ftt*l fftKJjff
l||i|il||liiM^^^
or "eir|y corporate environmental assfiiiirnU" to fulfill
,1^' I some of the NEPA obligations of die federal'agency.
' ' ; ~: However, in such cases, the agency must still evaluate
independently die environmental : issues and take
• for the environmental ssscstment.
I
9. Q. To what extent must an agency inquire into whether
an applicant for a federal permit, funding, or other
approval of a proposal will also need approval from
another agency for the same proposal or some other related
aspect of it?
A. Agencies must integrate tbe NEPA process into other
planning at die earliest possible time to insure that planning
and decisions reflect environmental values, to avoid delays
later in the process, and to head off potential conflicts.
Specifically, the agency must "provide for cases where
actions are planned by.. .applications,* so that designated
staff are available to advise potential applicants of studies
or other information that will foreseeably be required for
the later federal action; the agency shall consult with the
applicant if lie agency foresees its own involvement in the
proposal; and ft shall insure that the NEPA process
commences at the earliest possible time (Section 1501.2(d);
see Question 8).
The regulations emphasize agency cooperation early
in die NEPA process (Section 1501.5). Section 1501.7 on
"scoping* also provides that all affected federal agencies
are to be invited to participate in scoping the environmental
issues and to identify the various environmental review and
consultation requirements that may apply to the proposed
acse provisions are intended to encourage and
12 private and _ other nonfederal entities to build
rations into their own planning proc-
action. Further, Section 1502.25(b) requires that the draft
EIS list aD the federal permits, licenses, and other
entitlements that are needed to .implement the proposal.
These provisions create an affirmative obligation on
federal agencies to inquire early and, to the maximum
degree possible, to ascertain whether an applicant is or will
oe seeking other federal assistance or approval, or whether
tbe applicant is waiting until a proposal has been
substantially developed before requesting federal aid or
approval.
Thus, a federal agency receiving a request for
approval or assistance, should determine whether the
applicant has filed separate requests for federal approval or
assistance with other federal agencies. Other fr4t r*^
agencies that are likely to become involved should then be
ffflngfVd, and the NEPA process coordinated to insure an
early and comprehensive analysis of the direct and indirect
effects of the proposal and any related actions. The agency
should inform the applicant the action on its application
may be delayed unless k submits all other federal
applications (where feasible to do so) so that all the
relevant agencies can work together on me scoping process
and preparation of tbe EIS.
lOa. Q. What actions by agencies and/or applicants are
allowed during EIS preparation and during the 30-day
review period after publication of a final EIS?
e»»es ma way thst facilitates the application of NEPA and
A. No federal decision on the proposed action shall be
-------
EPA (Section* 1505.2 and 1506.10). Section 1505-2
requites this decision to be stated in a public record of
decision. Until the agency issues its record of decision, no
action by an agency or applicant concerning the proposal
shall be taken which would have an advene environmental
impif* or K™* ri*T '"tvKT of reasonable •*t*Tnftivcs
(Section 1506.1(a)). But this does not preclude preliminary
planning or design work which is needed to support an
application for perms* or assistance (Section 1506.1(d).
When the impact statement in question is a program
BIS, no major action coucmiing the program may be taken
which may significantly affect the quality of the human
environment, unless the particular action is justified
independently of the program, is accompanied by its own
adequate environmental impact statement, and win not
prejudice the ultimate decision on the program (Section
1506. l(c)).
106. Q. Do these limitations on action (described in
Question lOa) apply to state or local agencies that have
statutoruy delegated responsibility for preparation of
^twirff'wiKHHM documents required by NEPA, for example,
under the HUD Block Grant program?
A. Yes, these limitations do apply, without any variation
from their application to federal aj
11. Q. What actions must a lead agency taken during the
NEPA process when it becomes aware mat a non&deral
applicant is about to take an action within the jurisdiction
of the agency mat would either have an adverse
alternatives (e.g., prematurely commit money or other re-
sources towards the completion of the proposal)?
A. The federal agency must notify the applicant mat the
agency wffl take strong affirmative steps to insure mat the
objectives and procedures of NEPA are fulfilled (Section
1506.1(b). These steps could include seeking injunctive
measurements under NEPA, or the use of sanctions
available "rvtrr either the permitting authority of the
agency or fTiti*rr setting forth the statutory nMTtK*n of the
agency. For example, the agency might advise an applicant
that if such action is taken, the agency wifl not process the
application.
12a. Q. What actions are subject to the new regulations of
CEQ, and what actions are grandfittbered under the old
guidelines?
A. The effective date of the CEQ regulations was July 30.
1979 (except for certain HUD programs under the Housing
and Community Development Act, 42 U.S.C. 5304(h), and
certain state highway programs that qualify under Section
102(2XD) of NEPA for which the regulations became
effective on November 30,1979). AH the provisions of the
regulations are binding as of that date, including those
covering decision making, public participation, referrals,
limitations on actions, EIS supplements, etc. For example,
a record of decision would be prepared even far decisions
where the draft EIS was filed before Jury 30, 1979.
But in determining whether or not the new
regulations apply to the preparation of a r«*r"hr
environmental document, the relevant factor is the date of
filing of the draft of that document. Thus, the new
regulations do not require the «a*«o«n of an EIS or
supplement if the draft EIS or supplement was filed before
July 30, 1979. However, a supplement prepared after the
effective date of the regulations for an EIS issued in final
before the effective date of the regulations would be
controlled by the regulations.
Even though agencies are not required to apply the
regulation* to an EIS or other document for which the draft
was filed prior to July 30,1979, the regulations encourage
agencies to follow the regulations 'to the fullest extent
practicable,' Le., if it is feasible to do so, in preparing the
final document (Section 1506.12(a)).
12b. Q. Are projects authorized by Congress before the
effective date of the CEQ regulations grandfathered?
A. No. The date of Congressional authorization for a
project is not determinative of whether the CEQ regulations
or former guidelines apply to the particular proposal. No
incomplete projects or proposals of any kind are
grandfathered in whole or in part Only certain
environmental documents, for which the draft was issued
before the effective date of the regulations, are
grandfathered >|v^ subject to the former guidelines of the
CEQ.
12c. Q. Can a violation of the regulations give rise to a
cause of action?
A. While a trivial violation of the regulations would not
give rise to an independent cause of action, such a cause of
action would arise from a substantial violation of me
regulations (Section 1500.3).
13. Q. Can the scoping process be used in connection with
preparation of an environmental tssnimenl, Le,, before
bom the decision to proceed with an EIS and publication of
a notice of intent?
A. Yes. Scoping can be a useful tool for discovering
alternatives to a proposal or significant impacts mat may
have been overlooked. In cases where an environmental
assessment is being prepared to help an agency decide
whether to preparean EIS, useful information might result
from early participttion by other agencies and the public in
a scoping process.
4-17
-------
The regulations state that the scoping process is to be
preceded by a notice of intent (NOI) to prepare an EIS. But
that is only the minimum requirement. Scoping may be
initiated earlier, as long as there is appropriate public
notice and enough information available on the proposal so
that the public and relevant agencies can participate
effectively.
However, scoping that is done before the assessment,
and in aid of its preparation, cannot substitute for the
normal scoping process after p
i of the NOI, unless
the earlier public notice stated eleariy that mis' possibility
was under consideration, and the NOI expressly provides
that written comments on the scope of alternatives and
impacts wiH still be considered.
I '!,'''
, 14«- Q. What aze the respective rights aad responsibilities
of lead aad cooperating agencies? What letters and
nxaDorsudt,must be prepared?
A. After a lead agency has been designated (Section
1501.5), that agency has the responsibility to solicit
cooperation from other federal agencies mat have jurisdic-
tion by law or special expertise on any environmental issue
that should be addressed in the EIS being prepared. Where
appropriate^ the lead agency should seek the cooperation of
II ll II Illl Iililll 1111 il state or local agencies of similar qualifications. When the
proposal may affect an Indian reservation, the agency
should consult with die Indian tribe (Section 1508.5). The
request for cooperation should come at the earliest possible
time in the NEPA process.
After discussions with the candidate cooperating
agencies, the lead agency and the coorgraHng agencies are
to determine by letter or by memorandum which agencies
undertake cooperating responiMiHrs. To the extent
i iiiiiii (i iiiiiii
iiiiii il i il
ill iiiiiii
ill iiiiiii iiii
llllllll1, 'I
possibk at this stage, responsftiKties for specific issues
should be assigned. The allocation of responsibilities will
be completed during scoping (Section 1501.7(aX4)).
Cooperating agencies must assume responsibility for
the development of information and the preparation of
environmental analyses at the request of the lead agency
(Section 1501.6(bX3)). Cooperating agencies are not
1''llin required by Section 1501.6 to devote staff resources that
were normally used to critique or comment on the draft
EIS after its preparation, much earlier in the NEPA
process-primarily at the scoping and draft EIS preparation
stages. If a cooperating agency determines that its resource
limitations preclude any involvement, or the degree of
involvement (amount of work) requested by the lead
agency, it must so inform the lead agency in writing and
submit a copy of mis correspondence to the Council
(Section 1501.6(c)).
In other words, the potential cooperating agency must
fill I1' dccidectriy if k i* able to devote any of its resources to a
particular proposal. For mis reason, the regulation states
mat an agency may reply to a request for cooperation that
"other; program commitments preclude any involvement or
:iit£iiii<;M ' «B*fKii;rti 'din tttaw
the degree of involvement requested in the action that is the
subject of the environmental impact •^Timf (Emphasis
added.) The regulations refers to the 'action', rather than
to the EIS, to clarify that the agency is taking itself out of
afl phases of the federal action, not just draft EIS
preparation. This means mat the agency has determined
that it cannot be involved in the later stages of EIS review
and comment, as well as decision making on the proposed
action. For mis reason, cooperating agencies with
jurisdiction by law (those which have remitting or other
approval authority) cannot opt out entirely of the duty to
cooperate on the EIS (see also Question 15, relating
specifically to the responsibility of EPA).
14b. Q. How are disputes resolved between lead and
cooperating agencies concerning the scope and level of
detail of analysis and the quality of data in impact
statements?
in «"I'MII«III«"II"«W i mil nniiiiiininniii ininnnn mi nnnginin in n iniiiii n HIM in in n i inn in mini i iniinnnn n inn
A. Such disputes are resolved by the agencies themselves.
A lead agency, of course, has the ultimate responsibility
for the content of an EIS. But it is supposed to use the
environmental analysis and recommendations of
cooperating agencies with jurisdiction by law or special
expertise to the maximum extent possible, consistent with
its own responsibilities aa lead agency (Section
1501.6(aX2)).
If the lead agency leaves out a «gtii!•"!?! KJ
!^ • • " '. ra?:;*3 i::*. "' I' !•': 5'5i i^^*ir.i:;;3:Fi^.^'^w^ffiiK\1K« K^™K$,:
'i ••• Y'T&'i, !:. iSi t :i;f;'" * w*!*1}! i '• i'" - aa i v w ' 'i* s™' i'1-- a '»' "•!;l l! •• >• "* • v' w* '•'im "* !""'!"
' ' " ' *' "" £1^^^^ iii SI,!5;*:!1 :^^^^^^^ '&
iii-r:
: S-
-------
14c. Q. What aie the specific responsibilities of federal and
state cooperating agencies to review draft EISs?
A. Cooperatingage
i (Le., agencies with jurisdiction by
law or special expertise) and agencies that are authorized
to develop or enforce environmental standards must
comment on environmental impact irtttmvrntf within their
jurisdiction, expertise, or authority (Sections 1503.2,
1508.5). If a cooperating agency is satisfied that its viewr
are adequately reflected in the environmental impact
statement, it should simply comment accordingly.
Conversely, if the cooperating agency determines that a
draft Pfs ]g incomplete, jnf/**"i'n?'*. or Jntcfffn.tr, or it **"
other comments, k should promptly make such comments,
conforming to the requirements of specificity in Section
15033.
14d. Q. How is the lead agency to treat the comments of
another agency with jurisdiction by law or special expertise
which has failed or refused to cooperate or participate in
scoping or ELS preparation?
A. A lead agency has the responsibility to respond to all
substantive cftrniiifT*** raising significant itmr*- regarding a
draft EIS (Section 1500.4). However, cooperating agencies
are generally under an obligation to raise issues or
otherwise participate in the EIS process during scoping and
EIS preparation if they reasonably can do so. In practical
terms, if a cooperating agency fails to cooperate at the
outset, such as during scoping, it win find that its
comments at a later stage win not be as persuasive to the
lead agency.
15. Q. Are responsibilities of the EPA to review and
comment on the environmental effects of agency proposals
under Section 309 of the Clean Air Act independent of its
responsjbilily as a cooperating agency?
A. Yes. EPA has an obligation under Section 309 of the
dean Air Act to review and comment in writing on the
»fpftm^py^*«i imrint of any *"•»*** relating to the authority
of the administrator contained m proposed legislation,
federal construction projects, other federal actions requiring
EISs, and new regulations (42 U.S.C. See. 7609). This
obligation is independent of its role as a, cooperating agency
under the NEPA regulations.
16. Q. What is meant by the term •third party contracts*
in connection with the preparation of an EIS? (See Section
1506.5(c).) When can •third party contracts* be used?
A. As used by EPA and other agencies, the term "third
party contract* refers to the preparation of EISs by
contractors paid by me applicant. In me case of an EIS for
a National Pollution Discharge Elimination System
(NPDES) permit, the applicant, aware in the early planning
stages of the proposed project of the need for an EJS,
contracts directly with a consulting firm for ks preparation
(Section 40 CFR 6.604(g)). The "third party* is EPA
which, under Section 1506.S(c) must select the consulting
firm, even though the applicant pays for the cost of
preparing the EIS. The consulting firm is responsive to
EPA for preparing an EIS that meets the requirements of
the NEPA regulations and the NEPA procedures of the
EPA. ft is in the applicant's interest that the EIS can
comply with the law so that EPA can take prompt action on
the NPDES permit application. The third party contract*
method under the NEPA procedures of the EPA is purely
voluntary, though most applicants have found it helpful in
expediting compliance with NEPA.
If a federal agency used "third party contracting*,
the applicant may undertake the necessary paperwork for
the solicitation of a field of """^VfiT im»i»f the direction
of the agency, so long as the agency complies with Section
1506.5(c). Federal procurement requirements do not apply
to the agency because it incurs no obligations or costs
under the contract, nor does the agency procure anything
under the contract
17*. Q. If an EIS is prepared with the assistance of a
consulting firm, the firm must nrrrntc a disclosure
statement. What criteria must the firm follow in
determining whether ft has any 'financial or other interest
in the outcome of the project* which would cause a. conflict
of interest?
A. Section 1506.5(c), which specifies that a consulting firm
preparing an **fl^ mint CTyfftf* a disclosure T^***jiifntj. dopt
not define "financial or other interest in the outcome of the
project." The Council interprets this term broadly to cover
any known benefits other than general enhancement of
professional reputation. This includes any fi«mei«i benefit
such as a promise of future construction or design work on
the project as well as indirect benefits the consultant u
aware of (e.g., if the project would aid proposals sponsored
by the other clients of the firm). For example, completion
of a highway project may encourage construction of a
shopping center or industrial park from which the
consultant stands to benefit. If a consulting firm is aware
thst it has such an interest in the decision on the proposal,
k should be disqualified from preparing the EIS to preserve
the objectivity and integrity of the NEPA process.
When a consulting firm has been involved in
developing initial data and plans for the project, but does
not have any financial or other interest in the outcome of
the decision, it need not be disqualified from preparing the
EIS. However, a disclosure statement in the draft EIS
should clearly state the scope and extent of the prior
involvement of the firm to expose any potential conflicts of
interest that may exist.
4-19 :
-------
T
17b. Q. If the firm m fact has no promise of future work
i aWiaBBiiii: :iiti», or other interest in the outcome of the proposal, may tbe
farm later bid a competition with others for future work on
; the project if me proposed action is approved?
A. Yes.
1 - " •'-" r^';;;:'•; ;i,'^Ja Q- How «o°ajd uncertainties about indirect effects of,
be addressed, for example, m eases of disposal
lands when the identity or plans of future
A. Tbe E3S most identify all the indirect effects that are
, and make a good faith effort to explain the effects
"-• - — : that are not known, but are "reasonably foreseeable"
(Section 150S.S(b)). In tie" rnitnplf., if there is total
uncertainty about the identity of future land owners or the
111111 nature of future land uses, then of course tbe agency is not
their future pkns. But, in the ordinary course of business,
people do make judgiwuts based upon reasonably
foreseeable occurrences. It win often be possible to
consider the Ekely purchasers and the development trends
in that area, or similar areas in recent yean; or the
Oodihood that the land win be used for an energy project,
shopping center, subdivision, farm, or factory. The agency
has therespoosjfciljtyto make an informed judgment and to
t*tim?t*i future impacts on that basis, especially if trends
^i^nKi is,,;;:y,i,i;'5^ are ascerdunable or potential purchasers have made
-.^^.r^z !,::::::,: themselves known. The agency cannot ignore these
uncertain, but probable, effects of its decisions.
scope of mitigation measures thai must
im an fffs must cover
: range of impacts on the proposal. Tbe measures must
include such things as design alternatives that would
CJCftaM? DOSllDOQ CffllUlOCUFt OQf^atfHlc^iQn UDOfcCtS*
sthetic intrusion, as well as relocation assistance, possible
efforts. Mitigation measures must be considered even for
mat by themselves would not be considered
"significant". Once tbe proposal itself is considered as a
whole to have significant effects, all of its specific effects
ok the environment (whether or not "significant") must be
considered, and mitigation measures must be developed
where I k feasible to do so (Sections 1502.14(f),
™ 15024601), 1508.14).
!i'!£^: || ~ -" B ' !
19fc. Q. How should an EIS treat the subject of available
mitigation measures thai are (I) outside tbe jurisdiction of
the kad agency or cooperating agencies or (2) unlikely to
be adopted or enforced by the responsible agency?
A. All relevant, rMsonshJemhigstinn measures that could
"• improve tbe project are to be k;
-------
available information. The analysis it formulated on the
basis of available information, using reasonable projections
of the worst possible consfquencct of a proposed action.
if diere are ac**r*i*iify* uncertainties i
i the available information concerning die numbers
of juvenile fish tiiat would be entrained in a cooling water
facility, die responsible agency must disclose and consider
die possibility of die loss of die commercial or sport
fishery.
In addition to an analysis of a low
probability/catastrophic impact event, die wont case
analysis should also include a tprrtntm of events of higher
probabffity, but of leas drastic impact.
21. Q. Where an EIS or an EA is combined wfth another
project planning document (sometimes called
"piggybacking"), to what degree may die EIS or EA refer
to and rely upon information in die project document to
satisfy die requirements of NEPA?
A. Section 1502.25 of die regulations requires dial draft
EISs be prepared concurrently and integrated with
environmental analyses and related surveys and studies
required by other federal statutes. In addition, Section
1506.4 allows any environmental document prepared in
compliance with NEPA to be combined with any other
agency document to reduce duplication a*v^ paperwork!.
However, these provisions were not intended to authorize
the preparation of a abort summary or outline ESS, attached
to a ^**ytfA project report or land use plan containing the
required environmental impact data. In such circtimttiixTS,
die reader would have to refer constantly to the detailed
report to upocr«rtttno toe cuvuom&cDtsU sDDftcts ADQ
alternatives which would have been found in the EIS itself.
The EIS must stand on its own as an analytical
document which fully informs decision makers and the
public of the environmental effects of the proposal and
those of the reasonable alternatives (Section 1502.1). But,
as long as the EIS is dearly identified and is
self-supporting, it can be physically included in or attached
to the project report or land use plan and may use attached
lepuil material as technical backup.
Forest Service environmental impact statements for
forest management plans are hannTnd in this manner. The
EIS identifies the preferred alternative of the agency, which
is developed m flr^w" as the proposed management plan.
The detailed proposed plan accompanies the EIS through
the review process, and documents are appropriately cross
referenced. The proposed plan is useful for EIS readers as
an example to show how one choice of management options
translates into effects on natural resources. This procedure
permits initiation of die 90-day public review of proposed
forest plans which is required by die National Forest
Management Act.
All die alternatives are discussed in die EIS which
can be read as an independent document. The details of die
management plan are not repeated in die EIS, and vice
versa. This is a reasonable nmctinnal separation of die
documents: die EIS contains information relevant to die
choice among alternatives; die plan is a detailed description
of proposed management activities suitable for use by die
Hand managers. This procedure provides for concurrent
compliance with die public review requirements of bom
NEPA and die National Forest Management Act
Under some circumstances, a project report or
management pkn may be totally merged wim die EIS, and
the one document hi^V^} as both "EIS" and "management
plan" or "project report". This may be reasonable where
me documents are short or where die EIS format and die
regulations for clear, analytical EISs also satisfy die
requirements for a pioject report.
22. Q. May state and federal agencies serve as joint lead
agencies? If so, how do diey resolve kw, policy, and
resource conflicts under NEPA and die relevant state
environmental policy act? How do diey resolve differences
in perspective where, for example, national and local needs
may differ?
A. Under Section 1501.5(b), federal, state, or local
agencies, as long as diey include at least one federal
Agency, may act as joint lead agencies to prepare an EIS.
Section 1506.2 also strongly urges state and local agencies
end die relevant federal agencies to cooperate fully with
each other. This should cover joint research and studies,
planning activities, public hearings, environmental
, and die preparation of joint EISs under NEPA
and die relevant 'little NEPA" state laws so that one
document will satisfy bom laws.
The regulations also rrcognfrr that certain
inconsistencies may exist between die proposed federal
action and any approved state or local plan or law. The
joint document should discuss die extent to which die
federal agency would reconcile its proposed action wim
such plan or law (Section 1506.2(d); see Question 23).
Because dwre may be differences in perspective, as
well as conflicts among federal, state, and local goals for
resources, management, ate Council has advised
participating agencies to adopt a flexible, cooperative
approach. The final EIS should reflect all of dieir interests
and missions, clearly identified as such. The final document
would then indicate how state and local interest have been
accommodated, or would identify conflicts in goals (e.g.,
bow a hydroelectric project, which might induce second
borne development, would require new land use controls).
The EIS must contain a complete discussion of scope and
purpose of die proposal, alternatives, and impacts so that
the discussion is adequate to meet die needs of local, state,
and federal decision makers.
23a. Q. How should an agency handle potential conflicts
between a proposal and die objectives of federal, state, or
4-21
-------
p•,.ij|i|i "if"liisiii'l*"I'jgjjft'vi&rSf '!': i!:S>'!-1 "•''S'"=,ilii-!"li1 ii .: SitWisSJl1 SSii'l'i"! lii,Si* *§itSl',• W'1!"lijiEsi1: 1 PIKf"
^
local land use plans, policies, and controls for the area
concerned? (See Section1502, IO(e)).
A. The agency should first inquire of other agencies
whether there are any potential conflicts. If there would be
; conflicts, or & ^mfnVti could arise in the future
when the plans arc finished (see Question 23b below), the
EIS must acknowledge and describe the extent of those
conflict*. If ,{1616, are any potsfeilities of resolving the
cooJlicts, these should be gpjajnrd as welL The EIS
"'itlinti^H aft) ejvaluaiic tfer n^ritMif iiftf of tfy- jnwict of the
proposal oa the land use plans and policies and whether, or
bow much, the proposal will impair the effectiveness of
lagkd use control nirx'niintffTny for the area. Comments
officiak of the aficcted area should be solicited early and
lii ii1' i i i. i|iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiniiiii nniiii i iiiiiiiiiiiiiiliiiiiiiiii!iiiiiii'!iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii:iiiiiiiiiiliiiiii!iin iniiiilii mi iiiiiiniiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii. *
land use plan or policy* for
~'
A. The term "knd use plans', includes all types of
" formally adopted documents for land use planning, zoning,
and related regulatory requirements. Local general plans
are included, even though they are subject to future
": change. Proposed plans should also be addressed if they
jpssSsSsrsE1 have been formally proposed by the appropriate govcm-
' ! meat body m a written form and are being actively pursued
by officials of the jurisdiction. Staged plans, which must go
through phases of 'development such as the Level A, B, and
C planning process of the Water Resources Council, should
provision would require the decision maker to explain any
decision to override land use plans, policies, or controls for
the area.
24a- Q. When are RTSs required on policies, plans or
programs?
A. An EIS must be prepared if an agency proposes to
implement a specific policy, to adopt a plan for a group of
related actions, or to implement a specific statutory
program or executive directive (Section 1508.18). In
addition, the adoption of official policy in the form of
rules, regulations, and interpretations pursuant to the
Administrative Procedure Act, treaties, conventions, or
ntfryr formal ifru!VTnrnt* establishing governmental or
agency policy which wOl •"h**"'*;*ffly alter agency
programs could require an EIS (Section 1508.18). In all
cases, the policy, phut, or program must have the potential
for significantly affecting the quality of the human
environment in order to require an EIS. ft should be noted
that a proposal "may exist in fact as wefl as by agency
declaration mat one exists" (Section 1508.23).
abp be included, even though they are incomplete.
~,^^"_~1, ~~, ,1 " ^'l'*',,' The term "policies" includes formally adopted
statements of land use policy as ftnhodjgd in laws or
^^^ y^jj^j^j^ jj a^ jQgjj^^ pjppjj^j, for actjon juch u the
initittioo of a planning process or a formally adopted
iBcy' statement of the local, regional, or state executive
"even if i has not yet been formally adopted by the
23c. Q. What options are available for the decision maker
when cooilicts with such, plans or policies are identified?
After identifying any potential land use conflicts, the
•• deckioa maker must weigh the significance of the conflicts
tiiiin^^
amoog all the
id nonenviroomental
; that must be considered in reaching a rational and
causmg or contributing to any inconsistency with the land
use plans, policies, or controls, the decision maker retains
; the authority to go forward with the proposal, despite the
poteotiil conflict, li the record of decision, the decision
.;•:!;' maker must explain what the decision was, how it was
made, and whit mitigation measures are being imposed to
lessen adverse S!"-~!!.I!S!!S! imP*ct* °K 1bc proposal,
!^^ amoflfi the other requirements of Section 1505.2. This
24b. Q. When is an area-wide or overview EIS
appropriate?
A. The preparation of an area-wide or overview EIS may
be particularly useful when similar actions, viewed with
other reasonably foreseeable or proposed agency actions,
share common timing or geography. For example, when a
variety of energy projects may be located in a single
watershed, or when a series of new energy technologies
may be developed through federal funding, the overview or
area-wide EIS would serve as a valuable and necessary
analysis of the 9fffftt4 environment "*^ the potential
cumulative impacts of the reasonably foreseeable actions
under that program or within that geographical area.
24c. Q. What is the function of tiering in such cases?
A. Tiering is a procedure which allows an agency to avoid
duplication of paperwork through the incorporation by
reference of the general discussions and relevant specific
discussions from an environmental trnpict staff iwnf of
broader scope into one of lesser scope or vice versa. In the
example given in Question 24b, this would mean that an
overview EIS would be prepared for all of the energy
activities reasonably foreseeable in a particular geographic
area or resulting from a particular development program.
Thu impact statement would be followed by site- or
project-specific EISs. The tiering process would make each
PIS of greater use and meaning to the public aa the plan or
program develops, without duplication of the analysis
prepared for the previous impact statement.
:," ,h, ,'i' '.iillll /"IHIIIilll!!';'!,!'I " il, 1,11": '' 'Nil I'll" illlll'l'"'1'
4-22
ii;:«li hill, i!1!':!!,!!! '1' Ml1' ::""!«XV'K
:'vi'i: 'nfru iilljli-lt .i'1 lliilll1 <>t>!l! '' ll/i ,'V'J' illl'lil!!'1)!1'1' :i!^lAiW^^^^^^^^^ ili ilMlL *SWl it • ' '
till!)!:;
! llfciif 3
«H^^^
;i|I!'!|!g<|:,,|, I„ .i p« 11, IB il^l|i;|iia^ LiH'T i" I!11: il"!!-'!l
iita^^^^^
il«^^^^
-------
25a. Q. When is it appropriate to use appendic
stead of
including information in the body of an EIS?
A. The body of the E1S should be a succinct
afl the information on environmental impacts and
ffrfms^r^CT that the decision fr^frrr aft^ the public nerd in
order to make the decision and to ascertain that every
significant factor has been '^•""Tfd The EIS must g*pi«»f«
nr mmrtm»rfff m^h*yfr»]ngj^ fff jt^fmrptt mtut modeling and
the results of research that may have been conducted to
analyze impacts and alternatives.
Lengthy nxhniol discussions of modeling
methodology, baseline studies, or other work are best
reserved for the appendix. In other words, if only
technically trained individuals are likely to understand a
discssion , thrr* it ThpnM go m tfaff ippnKtiy, »"A
a plain language summary of the analysis and conclusions
of mat trrhniriil discussion shmiM go in the tait of the EIS.
The final sts
at;
stals
otain the response of
me agency to comments on the draft ESS. These responses
wHl be primarily in the form of changes in the document
itself, but specific answers to each Titnif***^ comment
should also be included. These specific responses may be
placed in an trpfKlrt If the comments are especially
voluminous, summaries of the comments and responses will
suffice. (See Question 29 regarding the level of detail
required for responses to comments. )
25b. Q. How does an appendix differ from incorporation
by reference?
A. First, if at aU possible, the appendix accompanies the
EIS, whereas the material which is incorporated by
reference does not accompany the EIS. Thus, the appendix
should contain information that reviewers will likely want
to r Rumin^ The sppcudix shoflld include tn**^rMi that
pertains to preparation of a particular EIS. Research papers
directly relevant to the proposals, lists of affected species,
discussion of thr* methodology of nwffl? iPtTHf in thy
analysis of impacts, extremely detailed responses to
commeats, or other information would be placed in the
appendix.
The appendix must be complete and available at the
time the EIS is filed. Five copies of me appendix must be
sent to EPA with five copies of the EIS for filing. If the
appendix is too bulky to be circulated, it instead must be
placed in conveniently accessible locations or furnished
directly to commenton upon request. If it is not circulated
with EIS, the Notice of Availability published by EPA must
so state, giving a telephone number to enable potential
commenton to locate or request copies of the appendix
promptly.
Material that is not directly related to preparation of
the EIS should be incorporated by reference. This would
include other EIS*, research papers in the general
literature, technical background papers, or other material
that someone with technical training could use to evaluate
lhe analysis of the proposal. These must be made available,
either by citing the literature, furnishing copies to central
locations, or sending copies directly to commenton upon
request
Care must be taken in aU cases to ensure that
material incorporated by reference, and the occasional
appendix that does not accompany the EIS, are in fact
available for the full minimum public *v>""TKnt period.
26a. Q.
must an EIS indnc be?
A. The EIS index should have a level of detail sufficient to
focus on areas of the EIS of reasonable interest to any
reader, It cannot be restricted to the most important topics.
On the other hand, ft need not identify every conceivable
term or phrase in the EIS. If an agency believes that the
reader is reasonably likely to be interested in a topic, it
should be included.
26b. Q. Is a key word index required?
A. No. A key word index is a relatively short list of
descriptive terms that identifies the key concepts or subject
areas in a document. For example, it could consist of 20
term, urfneh A-agrgte ttv mn* rigmf^Mit ««p~*. nf •• PTg
mat a future researcher would need: type of proposal, lype
of impacts, type of environment, geographical area,
sampling or modelling methodologies used. This technique
permits the compilation of EIS «*•*• banks, by facilitating
quick and inexpensive access to stored materials. While a
key word index is not required by the regulations, it could
be a useful addition for several reasons. First, it can be
useful as a quick index for reviewers of the EIS, helping to
focus on areas of interest. Second, if an agency keeps a
fisting of the key word indexes of the EISs it produces, the
EIS piepaieu themselves will have quick access to similar
research data «m< methodologies to •*** their future ***^
work. Third, a key word index win be needed to make an
EIS available for future researcben using EIS data banks
that are being developed. Preparation of such an mdex
now, when the document is produced, win save a later
effort when uw data banks become operational.
27*. Q. If a consultant is used in preparing an EIS, must
the list of preparen identify members of the consulting
firm as wefl as the agency NEPA staff who were primarily
responsible?
• A. Section 1502. 17 requires identification of the names and
qualifications of persons who were primarily responsible
for preparing the EIS or significant background papen,
including basic components of the statement. This m*****
that member* of a consulting firm preparing material that
is to become part of the EIS must be identified The EIS
4-23
-------
•1 Illllll lull
I (I (IP
Illllll I 111 ill 1 II
ill Illllll
ll(llllll I lllllll(l Illllll I III III
—- i should identify these individuals even though the
' ''" coo*ultanf« contribution may have been ***$"&*$ by the
1 ' ' ' :::: ' :' ' ' '
27b. Q. Should sgency staff involved in reviewing and
editing the EIS also be included in the list of preparers?
ill i iiiiiii
II lllllllllll'
Agency personnel who wrote basic components of the
EIS or significant background papers must, of course, be
identified. The feift sbowM »*«" litt the tr*"tiT\"~*\ editors
who reviewed or edited the sfttrmcnts.
27c. Q. How mach mfermation should be included on each
person listed?
Illllll lllllllllll i lllllllllll 111 Illllll I llllW^ lllllllllll Illllll i ill III ill lllllllllll 111 i I lllllllllll lllllllllll ill I Illllll Hill lllllllllll 111
A. The list of preparers should normally not exceed two
pages. Therefore, agencies must determine which
individuals had primary respomubuity and need not identify
individuals with minor involvement. The list of preparers
should include a very brief identification of the individuals
involved, their qualifications (expertise, professional
disciplines), and the specific portion of the EIS for which
they arc responsible. This may be done in tabular form to
cot down on length. A fine or two for each person's
qualifications should be sufficient.
Illllll Illllll lllllllllll I Hi
iiiiiiM mm
28. Q. May an agency file photocopies of an EIS with EPA
pending the completion of printing the document?
lllllllllll 111 1H^^^^ i Illllli I lllllliiiilllililH I ill • I •• lllllllA lllllllllll I illililll II (I I Iiiiiii Illllll
A. Photocopies of an EIS may be filed with EPA prior to
printmg only if the photocopies are simultaneously made
available to other agencies and the public. Section 1506.9
of the regulations, which governs EIS filing, specifically
requires federal agencies to file prsT with EPA no earlier
;;;: , : , : ;: ;>> : : : ;;:> , ; :>>:; : then the EJS k districted to the 'public. However, this
section does not prohibit photocopying as a form of
llllllllll!!lilllllllllllllllllllllllllllUjl!:;illil^i:llMlll!llil!INjli::iiijllll|!|!li i »B I lllllllllllll»lll MB «" * NININNINIIINIIIIII
s--____ ....... and ...... distribution. ......... When ........ an ........ agency ........ chooses ......
T^K*ocopyingas the reproductioo method, the EIS must be
| .................. ""clear *"^ legible to infi'iift ease of reading and
decides that no substantive response to a comment is
i_necessary}iit mustbriefly explain why.
An agency it not under an obligation to issue a
lengthy reiteration of its methodology for any portion of an
EIS if the only comment addressing the methodology is a
simple complaint that the EIS methodology is ""Hi'tttf
But agencies must respond to
which are specific in their
..................................... : ......................... microfiching of the EIS. Where color graphs are irnportant
lit ViliiiillllH Hill lllllllllll iiilllllllllllllll lljiliiiliilTVIIillllllliililllllliilllllll'lwnnnillWllllllllllllliii' [[[ ^ * *
the EIS, they should be reproduced and circulated with
........................................... ' [[[ ............................ ......
29a. Q. What response must an agency provide to a
„„ comment on a draft EIS which states that the EIS
methodology is inadequate or *"***Tiitfly mplainfd? For
example, what level of detafl must an agency include in its
ig such an
, however brief,
criticism of agency
;l '
response to a simple pott card
allegation?
at male
methodology. For example, if a commentor of an EIS said
that the air quality dispersion analysis or methodology of
an agency was tnsdrqiistr, and the agency had included a
discussion of that analysis in the EIS, little if anything need
be added in response to such a comment. However, if the
cnmmemnr «aid that ttm Hi«per«i«n «n.ly«« M« ^i.A^.^T»
because of fts use of certain computational techniques, or
that a dispersion analysis was ins^ffwistfly explained
because computational techniques were not included or
referenced, then the agency would have to respond in a
substantive and meaningful way to such a comment.
If a number of comments are identical or very
similar, agencies may group the comments and prepare a
single answer for each group. Comments may be sum-
marized if they are especially voluminous. The commeuu
or summaries must be attached to the EIS, regardless of
whether the agency believes they merit individual
discussion in the body of the final EIS.
29b. Q. How must an agency .respond to a comment on a
draft EIS that raises a new alternative not previously
considered in the draft EIS?
A. This question might arise in several possible situations.
First, a commentor on a draft EIS may indicate that there
is a possible alternative which, in the view of the agency,
is not a reasonable alternative (Section 1502.14(a)). If that
is die case, the agency must explain why the comment does
not warrant further agency response, citing authorities or
reasons that support the position of the agency and, if
appropriate, indicate those circumstances which would
trigger agency reappraisal or further response (Section
1503.4(a)). For example, a commentor on a draft EIS on
a coal-fired power plant may suggest the alternative of
using synthetic fuel. The agency may reject the alternative
with a brief discussion (with authorities) of die
unavailability of synthetic fuel within the time frame
necessary to meet the need and purpose of the proposed
facility. '
A second possibility is that an agency may receive a
comment .indicating that a rurtiwliir alternative, while
responses to comments are described m
,: Section 1503.4. Normally, tie responses should result in
changes ia the text of the ESS, 'not simply a separate
answer at the back of the dnammtf But, in addition, the
agency must die what is response was, and if the agency
, ,
achieve certain mitigation benefits or for other reasons. If
"the modification is reasonable, the agency should include
a discussion of k in the final EIS. For example, a
commentor on a draft EIS on a proposal for a pumped
storage power facility 'might" suggest mat the applicant's"
-------
certain reasonable mitigation measures, including the
purchase and setting aside of a wildlife preserve to
substitute for the tract to be destroyed by the project. The
modified alternative including the •A4*Y*rt*\ mitigation
measures should be discussed by the agency in the final
ECS.
A third, slightly different possibility is that a
comment on a draft EIS will raise an alternative which is
a minor variation of one of the alternatives discussed in the
draft EIS, but this variation was not given any
consideration by the agency. In such a case,- the agency
should develop and evaluate the new alternative, if ft is
reasonable, in the final EIS. If k is gualitatively within the
spfrtruin of alternatives that were ditcuisrd in the draft, a
supplemental draft will not be needed. For example, a
commentor on a draft FP to designate a wilderness area
within a nations 1 forest might reasonably identify a specific
tract of the forest and urge that ft be considered for
designation. If the draft EIS considered designation of a
range of alternative tracts which encompassed forest area
of similar quafity and quantity, no supplemental EIS would
have to be prepared. The agency could fulfill its obligation
by addressing that specific alternative in the final EIS.
As another example, an EIS on an urban bousing
project may analyze the alternatives of constructing 2000,
4000, or 6000 units. A commentor on the draft EIS might
urge the consideration of constructing 5000 units, utilizing
a different configuration of buildings. This alternative is
within the spectrum of alternatives already considered and,
therefore, could be addressed in the final EIS.
A fourth possibility is that a commentor points out an
alternative which is not a variation of the proposal or of
any alternative <*CT?tiMf< in the draft impact statement and
is a reasonable alternative mat warrants serious agency
response. In such a case, the agency must issue a
supplement to the draft EIS **'*t discusses this new
alternative. For example, a commentor on a draft ESS on
a nuclear power plant might suggest that a reasonable
alternative for meeting the projected need for power would
be through peak load management and energy conservation
Illinium* if the permitting agency has failed to consider
that approach in the draft EIS, and the approach cannot be
dismissed by the agency as unreasonable, a supplement to
the draft Vt$ which discusses that alternative must be
prepared. (If necessary, the same supplement should also
discuss substantial changes in the proposed action or
w circumstances or information, as required
by Section 1502.9(cXl) of the CEQ regulations.
If the new alternative was not raised by the
commentor during scoping, but could have been,
commentors may find mat they are unpersuasive in their
efforts to have their suggested alternative analyzed in detail
by the agency. However, if the new alternative is
discovered or developed later, and it could not reasonably
have been raised during the scoping process, then the
agency must address it in a supplemental draft EIS. The
agency is, m any case, ultimately responsible for preparing
an adequate EIS that considers all alternative*.
30. Q. When a cooperating agency with jurisdiction by law
intends to adopt the EIS of a lead agency and it is not
satisfied with the adequacy of the document, may the
cooperating agency adopt only the part of the EIS with
which it is satisfied? If so, would a Twting agency
with jurisdiction by law have to prepare a separate EIS or
EIS supplement covering the areas of disagreement with the
Head agency?
A. Generally, a cooperating agency may adopt the EIS of
a lead agency without recirculating it if it concludes that its
NEPA requirements and its comments and suggestions have
been satisfied (Section 1506J(a),(c)). If necessary, a
cooperating agency may adopt only a portion of the EIS of
the lead agency and may reject that part of the EIS with
which it disagrees, stating publicly when it did not (Section
1506.3(a)).
A cooperating agency with jurisdiction by law (e. g
., an agency with independent legal responsibilities with
respect to the proposal) has an independent legal obligation
to comply with NEPA. Therefore, if the cooperating
agency determines that the EIS is wrong or ip^^fq'HrtP. it
must prepare a supplement to the EIS, replacing or adding
any needed information, and must circulate the supplement
as a draft for public and agency review and comment. A
final supplemental RIS would be required before the agency
could take action. The adopted portions of the lead agency
EIS should be circulated with the supplement (Section
1506.3(b)). A cooperating agency with jurisdiction by law
win have to prepare its own record of decision for its
action, in which it must explain how it reached its
conclusions. Each agency should explain bow and why its
conclusions differ, if that is the case, from those of other
agencies which issued their records of decision earlier.
An agency that did not cooperate in preparation of an
EIS may also adopt an EIS or portion thereof. But this
would arise only in rare initsnrrs, because an agency
adopting an EIS for use in its own decision normally would
have been a cooperating agency. If the proposed action for
which the EIS was prepared is substantially the same as the
proposed action of the adopting agency, the EIS may be
adopted as long as it is recirculated as a final EIS and the
agency announces what it is doing. This would be followed
by the 30-day review period and issuance of a record of
decision by the adopting agency. If the proposed action by
the adopting agency is not substantially the same as that in
the EIS (e.g., if an EIS on one action is being adopted for
use in a decision on another action), the EIS would be
treated as a draft and circulated for the normal public
comment period and other procedures (Section 1506.3(b)).
31a. Q. Do the CEQ NEPA regulations apply to
independent regulatory agencies like the Federal Energy
4-25
-------
1
?i|| !• Ill II, 1111"!! Ill li HI I Hill I Hill I1
- " "::::: Regulatory Commission (FERC) and the Nuclear
Regulatory Commission (NRC)?
, • , < I i i i ( i i
imhliiliiillllllMiiiiF1 'WjlljH I
A. The statutory requirements of NEPA Section 102 apply
'"::' ' : te>t*aH agencies of the federal government." The NEPA
regulation! impfcment the procedural provisions of NEPA
a* f«t form ia NEPA Section 102(2) for all agencies of the
federal government. The NEPA regulations apply to
independent regulatory agencies; however, they do not
direct independent regulatory agencies or other agencies to
;!:£=;; make decisions in any particular way or in a way
inconsistent with the statutory charter of an agency
III -II III • (Sections 1500.3,1500.6,1507.1, and 1507.3).
iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii!' i iniiF i'i i1' i11 iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii1' ?f IB** i«ii |i i
31b. Q. Can aa executive branch agency, like the
Department of Interior, adopt an BIS prepared by an
independent regulatory agency such as FERC?
A. If an independent regulatory agency such as FERC has
prepared an EIS in connection with its approval of a
proposed project, an executive branch agency (e.g., the
Bureau of Land Management in the Department of Interior)
may, in accordance with Section 1506.3, adopt the EIS or
a portion thereof for its use in considering the same
1 Jl< ' m " ' "! " proposal. In such a ease, the EIS must, to the satisfaction
i .1.' i of the adopting agency, meet the standards for an adequate
mder the NEPA regulations (including scope and
JH^ Illlll qualify of analysis of alternatives) and must satisfy the
" comments and suggestions of the adopting agency. If the
regulatory agency fails to comply with the
•A regulations, the cooperating or adopting agency may
find that it is unable to adopt the EIS, thus forcing the
: ::< -== '"= := = preparation of a new EIS or EIS supplement for the same
-: action. The NEPA regulations were made applicable to all
federal agencies in order to avoid mis result and to achieve
: ; uniform application and efficiency of the NEPA process.
32. Q. Under what circumstances do old EtSs have to, be
supplemented before taking action on a proposal?
A. At a rule of thumb, if the proposal has not yet been
impkmented, or if the EIS concerns an ongoing program,
EJS* that are more {ban 5 years old should be carefully
!|i!! ! !l~ amined to determine if the criteria in Section 1502.9
compel preparatioci of an mS suppiemeoti
If an agency has made a subtttntial change in a
ction that k relevant to envirciMnental concerns,
significant new <
to environmental concerns and bearing on the
proposed action or its impacts, a supplemental EIS must be
prepared for an old EIS so that the agency has the best
poMJblc information to make any necessary substantive
changes in its decisions regarding the proposal. (Section
33a. Q. When must a referral of an interagency
disagreement be made to the Council?
A. The referral procedure of the Council is a predeciskm
referral process for interagency disagreements . Hence,
Section 1 S04. 3 requires that a referring agency must
deliver its referral to the Council not later than 25 days
after publication by EPA of notice that the final EIS is
available (unless the lead agency grants an extension of
time under Section 1504.3(b)).
33b. Q. May a referral be made after this issuance of a
record of decision?
A. No, except for cases where agencies provide an internal
appeal procedure which permits simultaneous filing of the
final EIS and ............. the ........ record ................... of ............... decision ............. (Section
," 1506.10(bX2)). Otherwise, as ..... stated above, ..... the process is
a predecision referral process. Referrals must be made
within 25 days after the notice of availability of the final
ESS, whereas the final decision (ROD) may not be made or
filed until after 30 days from the notice of availability of
the ESS (Sections lSOO(b), 1506.10(b)). If a lead agency
has granted an extension of time for another agency to take
action on a referral, the ROD may not be issued until the
extension has expired.
34a. Q. Must records of decision be made public? How
should they be made available?
A. Underthe regulations, agencies must prepare a "concise
public record of decision,* which contains the elements
specified in Section 1505.2. This public record may be
integrated into any other decision record prepared by the
agency, or it may be separate if decision documents are not
normally made public. The record of decision is intended
by the Council to be an environmental document (even
though it is not explicitly mentioned in the definition of
*cn"ironmffntal 4ocsinnmt" in Section 1 50ft. 1 0)
it must be made available to the public through appropriate
public notice, as required by Section 1506.6(b). However,
there is no specific requirements for publication of the
ROD itself, either in the Federal Register or elsewhere.
34b. Q. May the summary section in the final
environmental impact statement substitute for or constitute
the record of decision of an agency?
A. No. AH environmental impact statement is supposed to
inform the decision maker before the decision is made
• (Section 1502. 1,1505.2). The CEQ regulations provide for
a 30-day period after notice is published mat the final EIS
has been filed with EPA before the agency may take final
action. During that period, in addition to the internal final
agency, ..... the public ....... and ....... other ..... agencies ....... can ....................
comment on the ....... final ...... EIS ..... prior ..... to ....... the ...... final ...... action ..... of the
-------
agency on the proposal. In addition, the CEQ regulations
T"if« it clear that the requirements for the summary in an
EIS are not the same as the requirements for a ROD
(Sections 1502.12 and 1505.2) .
34c. Q. What provisions should records of decision contain
pertaining to mitigation and monitoring?
A. Lead agencies "shall include appropriate conditions
(including mitigatVifl measures m*A monitoring and
enforcement programs) m gnun% pcrnuts'' or other
approvals" >tv^ «K«II "condition fim^ing of actions on
mitigation* (Section 1505 3). Any such measures that are
adopted must be explained and CAmmiffT^f in the ROD.
The reasonable alternative mitigation measures and
monitoring programs th^wkf have been nMrctifd in tl^
The discussiott of mitigation v^
monitoring in a record of decision must be more detailed
than a general statement that mitigation is being required,
but not so ^"^nfl^d gg JQ duplicate discussion of mitigation
in the EIS. The record of decision should contain a concise
summary identification of the mitigation measures which
the »tp^j*^y IM« ^^miypiftf^ itself to adopt.
The record of decision must also state whether all
practicable mitigation measures have been adopted and, if
not, why not (Section 1505.2(c)). The record of decision
must identify the mitigation measures and monitoring and
enforcement programs mat have been selected and plainly
indicate that they are adopted as part of the decision of the
agency. If the proposed action is the issuance of a permit
or other approval, the specific details of the mitigation
measures shall then be included as appropriate conditions
in whatever grants, permits, funding or other approvals are
being made by the federal agency (Section 1505 J3(a),(b)).
If the proposal is to be carried out by the federal agency
itself, the record of decision should *mirf*^ta the mitigation
and monitoring measures in sufficient detail to constitute an
enforceable commitment or incorporate by reference the
portions of the EIS that do so.
34d. Q. What is the enforceabflity of a record of decision?
A. Pursuant to generally :
id principle* of federal
ogn
administrative law, agencies wul be held accountable for
preparing records of decision that conform to the decisions
actually made and for carrying out the actions set forth in
the records of deciskm. This is based on the principle that
an agency must comply with its own decisions and
regulations once they are adopted. Thus, the terms of *
record of deciskm are enforceable by agencies and private
parties. A record of decision can be used to compel
compliance with or execution of the mitigation measures
identified therein.
35. Q. How long should the NEPA process take to
complete?
A. When an EIS if required, the process obviously wul
take longer than when an EA is the only document
prepared. But the CEQ NEPA regulations encourage
streamlined review, adoption of deadlines, elimination of
duplicative work, eliciting suggested alternatives and other
comments early through scoping, cooperation among
agencies, and consultation with applicants during project
planning. The Council has advised agencies that under the
new NEPA regulations, even large, complex energy
projects would require only about 12 months for the
completion of the entire EIS process. For most major
actions, this period is well within the planning time that is
needed in any event, apart from NEPA.
The time required for the preparation of program
EISs may be greater. The Council also »««e"fee« that
some projects wul entail difficult long-term planning and/or
the acquisition of certain data which of necessity wul
require more time for the preparation of the EIS. Indeed,
some proposals should be given more time for the
thoughtful preparation of an EIS and development of a
decision which fulfills the substantive goals of NEPA.
Bar e**e* in which only «n emmrmtry-ntjl
wiD be prepared, the NEPA process should take no more
men 3 months, and in many cases, substantially less, as
part of the normal analysis and approval process for the
action.
36a. Q. How long and detailed must an environmental
assessment (EA) be?
A. The environmental assessment is a concise public
document which has three defined functions: (1) it briefly
provides sufficient evidence and analysis for determining
whether to prepare an EIS; (2) it aids the compliance of an
agency with NEPA when no EIS is necessary, Le. , it helps
to identify better alternatives and mitigation measures; and
(3) it facilitates preparation of an EIS when one is
necessary (Section 1508.9(a)).
Since the EA is a concise Av^i^ne^ it should not
contain long descriptions or detailed data which the agency
may have gathered. Rather, it should contain a brief
discussion of the need for the proposal, alternatives to the
proposal, the .environmental impacts of the proposed action
and alternatives, and a list of agencies and persons
consulted (Section 1508.9(b)).
While the regulations do not contain page limits for
EA*, the Council has generally advised agencies to keep
the length of EAs to not more than approximately 10 to 15
pages. Some agencies expressly provide page guidelines
(e.g., 10 to 15 pages in the ease of the Army Corps). To
avoid undue length, the EA may incorporate by reference
background data to support its concise discussion of the
proposal and relevant issues.
36b. Q. Under what circumsts.
appropriate?
is a lengthy EA
4-27
-------
I
A. Agencies ibould avoid preparing lengthy EAs. except in
unusual cases, where' a proposal is ao complex that a
• coecibedociiffleBt cannot meet the goals of Section 1508.9
~- and where* is extremely difficult to determine whether the
propo«*l e»uld have significant environmeaul effects. In
I'most coc», however, a lengthy EA indicates that an EIS is
;;';» 37a, Q. What a the level of detail of informatioa that must
^ be included in a finding of no significant impact (FONSI)?
A. The PONSJ a a document in which the agency briefly
explains the reasons why an action will not have a
...... ...........
effect oo the >"""•" environment and, therefore,
why an ESS win not be prepared (Section ........ 1508.13). The
detailed, but nu?it succinctly f**>j»
!i!!!B
tfae ...... reasons .......... for deciding ......... that ......... the ......... action .......... win ........... have ....... no .........
.............. significant ....... environmental ....... effects, ......... and, ........ if ...... relevant, ......... must .......
show which ......... factors ........ were ...... weighted most heavily in the
dctenniaatioo. In addition to
the FONSI
hi "I iillil LI Ij'ln: HI!!!
must include, ......... summarize, or attach and incorporate by
" reference the envaomoental i
Q. What are the criteria for deciding whether a
s available for public review for 30
file final determination of the .agency or
to prepare an EIS?
A. Public review is necessary, for example, (I) if the
proposal is a borderline case, Le., when there is a
reasonable argument for preparation of an EIS; (2) if it is
an unusual case, a new kind of action, or a
precedcot-Ktting case such as a first intrusion of even a m
minor development into a pristine area; (3) when there is
either scientific or public controversy over the proposal; or
[4) when I involves a proposal which is or is closely
' to one which normally requires preparation of an
(Sections 1501.4(c)(2), 1508.27). Agencies also must
alow a period of public ^view of the FONSI if the
narionil groups might be appropriate for proposals th«t are
national in scope. Local newspaper notices may be more
appropriate for regional or site-specific proposals.
The objective, however, is to notify all interested or
affected parties. If this is not being achieved, then the
^ methods should be reevaluated and changed. PT»^>~<
failure to reach the interested or affected public would be
interpreted as a violation of the regulations.
39. Q. Can an EA and FONSI be used to .improve
enforceable mitigation measures, monitoring programs, or
other requirements, even though there is no requirement in
the, regulations in such cases for a formal record of
decision?
A. Yes. meases where an environmental assessment is the
appropriate environmental document, there still may be
mitigation measures or alternatives that would be desirable
to consider and adopt, even though the impacts of the
proposal win not be "significant". In such cases, the EA
should include a discussion of these measures or
alternatives to "assist agency planning and decision
g" and to "aid an agency's compliance with (NEPA)
when no environmental impact statement is necessary"
(Section 1501J3(b), 1508.9(2)). The appropriate mitigation
measures CTII be imposed as enforceable p****"^ conditions,
or adopted as part of the final decision of the agency in the
same manner mitigation measures are adopted in the formal
record of decision that is required in EIS eases.
ntal
at indicates that the
ptopt
sdi
uid be located in a floodphin or wetland
UK niUo'll'lhlllllliiilPI'Mn, nil lllllllliK
(E.O. 11988, Sec. 2(aX4); E.0.11990, Sec. 2
-------
result in enforceable mitigation measures through the
record of decision.
In some instances where the proposal itself so
integrates mitigation from the beginning ft"* it is
impossible to define the proposal without including the
mitigation, the agency may men rely on the mitigation
measures in mniitf>>f>itt to build fi*fr ladders, to i permit iidfiiMsly down
stream flow, and to replace any lost wetlands, wildlife
habitat, and recreations! potential). In those instances,
agencies should make the FONSI and EA available for 30
days of public comment before taking action (Section
1501.4
-------
'• , I1 "t1!1' ' 'I :"" "i!
"iiw^
iiiiiitiiii '' 'ill !i' ' ' ' liiiiniiiiiiiiii i iiiiiiiiip w
|i; ii^i' \ ' iriiii q R
'i Kixa ' ." i, in ...... 'Tjentiiiw* ; ............. ^H^ »m yrjrrinm axf tx ..... iiiiui. a :T«J| ..... i iiur ,. • ::\ • 'i; ' xi i . '» .vnEMiiLj'ir I-lii'i'11 I
m^M ....... liiH ..... ,:ll^
'%*' HM! i!:?
•I ....... » ......... >vi ................ I ......... •> ...... Ill ........... F ..... ill .......... !„;»': ...... i ...... MC?7ii* .............. •:»!!! ......... .............. i ..... ,• ................. • ....... li"i ..................... " ...... JiiH^^^^ ...... .M3IB A ..... i ...... lAMW', ..... I ..... Iili ..... Is! ....... *i ...... "IF", ..... ...... 1,23 JlliiiM ...... !:r.plK«fc«lir;/!MHa:0'''''aW ................ IB^^^^^^
.-jiit;iiH3iittiuW'.!f«>Y:.>'' ..... ww•: 'iiF IIIJIIIIF , n ...... jii
" ............ ......................... i [[[ T" ........................................... i
^^ .JPIH "I'vii ..... , 'iej ........ i
..... , 'iej ........ i iiiiii , ''ViiF it; , :IIIBI! , ........
i
:IIIBI! , ........ HI ..... iiiiiiiiiiiiw^^^
Jllililll!11"! " I :i ..... „! w Ilillllil'ill1 l ' llllllilllll I ' IIIIIIFItl'lll :' ' I'llllllll i III li'iFi'i ', il ' {I1 ' " ' ...... I ilii , IN ...... n ....... ..... 1,11 ll'iluinUlllli jii'l
...... iii'lF: k HIS Iili V!1 ' f lllillHIII ......... II. liillliilli," 1 1 .iljllllliii ill "illilfni, .ill" iJiiillilljllllhilH'''! .1 ....... IIIIII ..... IhH i Ki ........ Ill yh IF WllllllFIIII il ..... Ill "ll'blilllllllillli Fniinil' 'I r ...... IFII ™i ,il II1 i|l|IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIFIi|i 'FU Illlllllllllllllllllllllllll IIIIIIIIIIIF IFIIIIIII #"!!,,' ii1" < ....... i i» ' '! TIIIIFIIIIII ...... n i ill ...... ' niii'lillillilllllli1 IIF1 ''lilillllli JIF
lllHil'l ..... i' .......... filli. ijlllll ,!!! i1:::11! luiil ..... i:1! .If I" '!li v ;';ji
^ ......... sal;! ..... iHiii:1::' ........ i ........ ijsi ...... lifi^ii
' li .......... ilk °i,lilit iiiiii.ii'. Ui'-IlK^ ...... 7<\ ....... »'£ ....... Hii
' F'liin" IP' ir. « 'iniiiiiiBiiiiniiii i"1"!11 'linn ^ iiiiii ,,ii iiiiii K I'liniiii " . jir't'iiniiiii!1!! ..... ir "i i'l'' "i|i;;i .1. 1. 1 "
:W flLr.'Ml&IIM'IBWIL1,1:
...... i'Si
i;i4iiia ..... < .......... iijivi ..... s;;- ..... , ..... !i:R! ...... ;:i
FiH^^ ..... ii ......... tii-'^iiiiiiW^ ......... i ..... mimm
iini.,11111.111..;:. iiiii!'1, nlii .
f 'i!:";' V' : iaiii^ KII^ 'ni11!! .mes, IH ill'' iiiiK^^^^^^^ (ff'"!!.!11 , > jiiniiiLiiiiin E*!*!1111!!
; i1 'i iiiiirii i,- > iiiilif iiii:!^ iiiipir i
i»^^^^^^^ •
!!^ I'llvi-ujj-iliii-ih '»!«
(IIH^^^^^^^ :!^^^^^^^^^ ik^Ji ' JS:I;HI:M^^^^^ IJIIIIK 'illil ^n! ' i;illiEiV^^^^^^^^^^ li::,il !:::iil Illllll 'in:!!!':;?':,!;!
l: illilllllllill.hiliilllllEIHiPpPIIBiNi!;"H, JIIKili.'IISn1" .;, ^; ."JUi'li 'iNIPE''!!!.,,!!!' ,,' illllllliaiiifflii11;;;,! PHk I'lliil'.i:!!;!'.! ,!:"l I 'I'ltliiliilPUBRBiPinPIP1!!!;1111' .iinlllPP!1 IllilnlhllliiPlliil'''!1!'.! .1. .i^'iPlnPPP' ' 1 SHIilli:::. ii niin'<.iip;i.iiii 'Sii'lH: '''' ""III! J'l'inilliytf1" ,."" .':i< i'! i,f ' / . Iff "!'"!!. nlDiillihn '"iliiJlPilPH1 llli'iif Pliil'niPPir'ilin"*1" •l||P9"i' 'i'lllllliiillllliilllllllillllllllllllp'l 'PlIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIH lilnP. :l>1liiinVII!l,!!iPniliPinnnn||l. Ill l.,.!!! .ilPlHPPP,,' 1111111111111111111111. illlill'lIlllllllllllllllllllllllllll1 llllll||lll
iiiinii :I'IPI,I:'?:I;;!
-------
V
United States Environmental Protection Agency
Office of Enforcement and Compliance Assurance
EPA's Section 309 Review:
The Clean Air Act and NEPA
March 1995
Office of Federal Actmties (2251)
Quick Reference Brochure
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW AND THE CLEAN AIR ACT
The Clean Air Act, a law to prevent pollution of a single environmental medium, contains an
unusual provision. That provision is Section-309, which authorizes the Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA) to review certain proposed actions of other federal agencies in accofdance with the .
National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and to make those reviews public. If the proposing
agency (the "lead" agency) does not make sufficient revisions and the project remains environmentally
.unsatisfactory, EPA may refer the matter to the President's Council on Environmental Quality for
mediation. (See Highlight A.) .
HIGHLIGHT A: Section 309 of the dean Air Act
.. (a) The Administrator shall review and comment in writing on the environmental-impact of any matter:
relating to duties and responsibilities granted pursuant to this Act or other provisions of the authority of
the Administrator, contained in any (1) legislation proposed by any Federal department or agency, (2)
newly authorized Federal projects for construction and any major Federal agency action (other than a.
project for construction) to which Section 102(2XQ of Public Law 91-190 [*] applies, and (3) proposed
regulations .published by any department or agency.of the Federal government. Such written comment'
shall be made public at the conclusion of any such review. .. • . . •.. • '•
(b) In the event the Administrator determines that any such legislation, action, or regulation is
unsatisfactory from the-standpoint of public health or welfare or environmental quality, he shall publish
his determination and the matter shall be referred to the Council on Environmental Quality.
[*] NEPA (42 USC 4332(2)(C) et seq.)
Section 309 originated in 1970, the year in which landmark national legislation created new
agencies and new requirements for restoring and protecting the environment. Besides NEPA and.its .
creation of CEQ, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) and EPA were
established, and, at the end of 1970, the Clean Air Act was passed. At that time, many issues of
environmental consequence were brewing (see Highlight B), one of which—the proposed supersonic.
-transport aircraft (SST)-became a crucial test of NEPAl (See The National Environmental Policy
Act section, below.) ' • •
The lead agency for the SST project, the Department of Transportation.(DOT), chose not to
disclose EPA's comments on the NEPA-*equired environmental impact statement (EIS) before having
' 4-31
-------
""! 'I,11!!,,.'
1 jiiii;iPii:i!!^^
i|Ji* >l 'lillllllllllilllllllllli'"},"! IIIIIP'''lliiil'i'llliljl'li'iii'lilllll
HIGHLIGHT B: When NEPA
Was New: 1970-1971
Issues
o Trans-Alaska oil pipeline and the
•North Slope-Valdez route
Supersonic transport aircraft
Cross-Florida Barge Canal
Clearcutting "areas of scenic
• beauty* in national forests
o Tennessee-Tombigbee Waterway
Dredging and filling in Wetlands
Calvert Cliffs (MD) nuclear
•- power plant-
Ill ..... Ill
in in iii
1(1 II III1!
iii ..... |i|i
ji| ..... ijii'
issued its final decision, construing NEPA to contain no
explicit pU5j|c disclosure requirements. Although later
CEQ regulations under the Act would clarify this
ambiguity, the Congress had. a vehicle at hand in which to
make its point: the draft Clean Air Act. Senator Edmund
Muskie, sponsor of Section 309,, said to the Senate when
submitting the conference report^ that as soon as EPA has'
completed its review of a proposed action, it must make" its
written comments public, and "not when the environmental
impact agency decides the public should be informed.".. .
(116 Cong. Rec. S-20602, Dec. 18, 1970) ,
To correct anoth'er ambiguity of NEPA, Section 309
places the requirement to review EISs upon EPA because
NEPA "does not assure that Federal environmental .agencies
will effectively participate in the decision-making process.
It is essential that .mission-oriented Federal agencies have '•','• .
access to environmental expertise in order to give adequate consideration to environmental factors."
(Sen.lRept. Nol9£li§o79"lit CongTi 21SessI 43, 1970) Consequently, EPA has reviewed most of
the approximately 20,000 draft and final EISs produced since the passage of NEPA.
I III Illi I ILL ill I. mm* 11 i 'it ' '- '- V: ,
iiljM . • •' '
responsibilities for proposed "federal actions. (See
Highlight C.) The EPA Administrator delegates this ..
responsibility to the Office of Federal Activities (OFA),
which has developed a set of criteria for rating draft EISs.
illlllllli in inn in iiinin i • •
The rating system provides a. basis upon which EPA makes
recommendations to the lead agency for improving the.
draft. If improvements are noTmade in the final EIS, EPA'
may refer the final EIS to CEQ. (See sections on The
National Enyironinenfal Policy Act and Referrals,
belowl) ' ' : ; • ' '
im ij Annually, OFA's Federal Agency Liaison Division and
i review about 450 EISs and some
Among the
HIGHLIGHT C: Materials
Which EPA Reviews Under
Section 309 Authority
o Proposed legislation
o Proposed regulation
o -Environmental assessment (EA)
o Environmental impact statement
(EIS), draft and final
o Any proposal that the lead agency
maintains does not require an EIS
but that EPA believes constitutes
a major federal action signifi-
cantly affecting the environment
so as to require an EIS.
oTj^rapose3 ...... ^g^
reviewed, besides.that for which an agency provides an
impact statement, are:, legislation proposed by a federal agency; a proposed agency regulation; the
Swll ...... of an action onguially ^approved before the enactment of NEPA; a proposal for which an
agency ..... Has ....... ggUJjgg ...... gjjj ..... 55 ........ ^--^ ..... ^— genTLis needed, whether or not the agency has published a
.jFinding of No Significaiilmpact (FONSI); and, an action that is actually a segment of either a
program or a reasonably expected succession of actions that could result in a cumulative negative
impact on human health or welfare or the environment.
4-32
i in i iiiiii in nil in •
in ii iii iii iiiiiiiiiiiiiii n iiiiiiiiiii in iii Illi 1111
-------
~]
Rgure 1: EPA's Criteria for Sec. 309 Review of impact Statements
Rating Environmental Impacts: , .
L.O—Lack of Objections .
EC—Environmental Concerns—Impacts identified that should be avoided. Mitigation measures may be
required. ' . •
EO—Environmental Objections—Significant impacts identified. Corrective measures may require
substantial changes to the proposed action or consideration of another alternative, including any that
. was either previously unaddressed or eliminated from the study, or the no-action alternative). •''
Reasons can include: .-.••• ! . \ "'• ,. > ' ' • • . .
o violation of a federal environmental'standard; . . - '
o violation of the federal agency's own environmental standard; ' . . :
o violation of an EPA policy declaration; --<"• ... • •
o potential for significant environmental degradation; or, \ . • .
o precedent-setting for future actions that collectively could result, in significant environmental
impacts. . :.. • . . ' ' •
EU—Environmentally Unsatisfactory—Impacts identified are so severe that the action must not proceed as
proposed. If these deficiencies are not corrected in the final EIS, EPA may refer the EIS to CEQ
Reasons, in addition to impacts identified, can include:
o substantial violation of a federal environmental standard;
o severity, duration, or geographical extent of impacts that warrants special attention; or, ' '
o national importance, due to threat to national environmental resources or policies.
Rating Adequacy of the Impact Statement; . .-,'"•• '• !
1 (Adequate)—No further information is required for review. . .
2 (Insufficient Information)—Either more information is needed for review, or other alternatives should
be ' - -' • . ' ' • ' ' . ' . - ' :
evaluated. -The identified additional information or analysis should be included in the final EIS.
3 . (Inadequate)—Seriously lacking in information or analysis to address potentially significant . ' .
• environmental impacts. The draft EIS does not meet NEPA and/or Section 309 requirements: If
not revised or supplemented and provided again as. a draft EIS for public comment, EPA may refer
the EIS to CEQ. . .
(See Selected Publications, below: EPA's Policy and Procedures for the Review of Federal Actions
Impacting the Environment.)
In addition to conducting environmental reviews, OFA develops guidance materials and provides
training courses on NEPA and Section 309 requirements for EPA regional staff, and promotes.
coordination between EPA offices and other federal .agencies. Also, OFA distributes annual
certificates of merit to federal agencies in recognition of outstanding performance for environmental
protection. ' •
THE NATIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY ACT AND CEQ
" The National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA, 42 USC 4321 et seq.) was enacted on January 1,
1970 in recognition of the widening influence.on the human and natural environment that individual
federal agency actions can exert. With its stated purpose (see Highlight D) and with heightened
4-33
-------
;: r
•in i nil i HIM 'i
public awareHess of environmentalquality questions, NEPA makes its goals and policies
"supplemental to those set forth in existing authorities of Federal agencies" (NEPA, Section 105). In
jffW'B'!!! ..... • this way, tEeagencies' authorizing statutes were amended to include NEPA requirements.
i ........ iiii ii i ......... "it ...... i. ! « >^^ " < .................. i ' ........... " ...... '
Title ..... I ...... of NEPA requires tiieleral .......
government to use all ...... iprac^caBIe ...... me^ ~{Q
preserve and maintain conditions under which
.human beings can coexist with the natural world
- in productive harmony. 'Section 102 directs
feder2~I|Scies_ to lend appropriate support to
initiatives ...... 'aid"" programs ...... nJeanT ..... lo ....... anticipate and
prevent degradation of world environmental
quality. Further, this section requires federal
agencies to incorporate environmental
considerations in their decision-making, using a
systematic, interdisciplinary; approach. . ' •
rzr if:'£ir .:',,;,,;: TlSenS oTNElPA" establishes lie Council" on
HIGHLIGHT D: The Purposes of NEPA
The purposes of this Act are: To declare 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 the understanding of
the ecological systems and natural resources
important .to the Nation; and .to establish a
Council on Environmental Quality.
, 42 use 4321 et seq.)
of NEPA, the
11514 authorizing CEQ to guide the Sec. 102 process. Under this
:'::::! T::^: ,;Twa
President i
order, ffie Council immediately published guidelines, followed in 1978 by regulations (40 CFR Parts
SSS::' ' lil::; 3""5S'5"' *""FKig) rapjunng all Federal agencies to issue NEPA regulations consistent with CEQ's. •
' to me PlesidentT CEQ conducts studies, prepares the annual Environmental Quality Report
indreviews EISs. Moreover, CEQ mediates interagency disputes concerning
analyses o'f matters of national importance. (See Referrals section, below.)
evidence of compliance with the NEPA Section 102 provisions for a proposed major action that
feet-tie environment, CEQ requires tfie lead Agency to prepare a detailed written
statement addressing NEPA concerns, i.e., an EIS (40 CFR Part 1501). The lead agency may first
prepare an environmental assessment (EA), which is a concise public document (40 CFR Part 1501.3).
mat determines whether an EIS or a FONSI (40 CFR Part 1501.4(e)) should be prepared. An EA is
r^^irr nSfnefeSSaTyY however, if the agency has decided at.the outset to prepare an EIS.
''llltlJBII!1 Ill
liilfil I"' ill
review, the lead agency provides tne fcis to tnose teaerai agencies having statutory jurisdiction
£ as well as to appropriate other federal, state, and local agencies; Indian tribes,
the proposed'action might impact tribal lands; and, the interested or affected public (40 CFR
Part 1503.1). Once the EIS is -final, the lead agency must file it formally, simultaneously making it
available to me public, together with the reviewers' comments and the lead agency's responses to .
those cojnmentf(40 CFR Part 1506.9). The CEQ regulations designate EPA the official recipient of
in^ ; MQinal 11?!, which responsibility the EPA Administrator delegates to OFA.
fii* . K; '"""iniiiii' 'iiiiia i; *f.i,,„», f j'.lihiiiiiiiLijiiiiii^iijiiiiijiiiiiiiiijii;;, m iiiiiiiiiijij;;^r^• iguii;;
f ]W iii/rL nii'ii iiviiini x, mii:, njjj;,, i
^ » jraF^;^ iwisj
-------
REFERRALS TO THE COUNCIL ON ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY
The "predecision referrals" provision (40 CFR Part 1504)
enables any federal agency under NEPA to refer another agency's
final EIS to CEQ during the 30-day waiting period before a lead
agency can proceed with the action. On the other hand, Section
309 authorizes EPA to refer to CEQ a broader range of federal
activities, not only, actions for which EISs are prepared. The CEQ
regulations (40 CFR 1504. l(b)) implement Section 309 of the Clean
Air Act, acknowledging that EPA has been assigned more extensive
review and referral authority than the other agencies (see Highlight
'
Within 25 days after the lead agency has made the final EIS
available to the public, the referring agency must provide early .
notification to that agency about its intention, and make its referral
in writing to CEQ. The lead agency, once it has received written
notification from CEQ, is to respond in writing within 25 days. .
During that same period, other agencies and the public may submit
written comments to CEQ. Then CEQ may publish Findings and
Recommendations; mediate between the disputing agencies; hold .
public meetings or hearings; refer irreconcilable disputes to the
Executive Office of the President for action; or, conclude either that
the issue is not of national importance or that insufficient
' -information has been. submitted upon which 'to base a decision.
In the time since the referral process was formally established in
1973, agencies have referred a total of 24 proposed federal actions
to CEQ. Of these, EPA was •responsible for 15, of which one was
referred jointly with the Department of the Interior (DOI). (See
'Figure 2 for EPA regional environmental review offices.) So far,
in no case has CEQ made a formal referral to the Office of the
President. Most often, CEQ has issued Findings and
Recommendations. In a few cases the lead agency has withdrawn
the proposal, and hi three cases CEQ determined that the issue was
not a matter of national importance. • .
In 1989, CEQ upheld EPA's Section 309 referral authority. At
issue was a DQI Bureau of Reclamation proposal to renew longterm
water contracts for irrigation operations of the Friant Unit in the
Central Valley Project of California. The reason for referral was
that no EIS had been prepared on the contract renewals, which
individually and in the aggregate were likely to result in
-.unsatisfactory environmental effects. In response^ DOI questioned
~EPA's right to challenge the agency's decision that no EIS was
needed. In rejecting that argument, CEQ established a precedent,
that is, affirmed that EPA may identify a major federal action .
significantly affecting the environment, even though .the lead agency
disagrees. . .
4-35
-------
Ijlli'iilliii H||i iK;,|; "|I|||"!<| IliJII1 gilllllPl, il'TlllllllliiVlljilill 'Bill! I It1' L llliKiHH" , ill, '" I' ,,iJliini!|liBlllllllli< ili.'li !•,' IB SI11!' <" n'l >' S,«], ilKUiill .y; / Illll1' I "MUS Illllllllll1 if" I I Wi,,1' li| IP, ,Hlili|ViVP:illlll\il!::n^ "P I! i:IP':"f i'BlinMBBM"!!!!!*!1 i''T' Xl'i ill'?1 HIIT'ijIilli: 'B'BHIL IBIpi'Hiilliipii" Ilil IBIIlllllllBlllltliP'il'llili, 'HILIIIP "BBilllBl^iiBIIBii BlllllllPllimii iiliBIIIIIIIIIIIIHllBBIBnIJIIIIill! IVil'flii|ll|iBii|llllllll["B
ii
lis'iij'iit .'f^!?'1^^ iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiEiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii
•sift Iii:|liliiia^^^^^^^^^^ i:i:JiIit! y iiniMpnir k«i ..... > ...... t ..... jji : i ....... i1 ", ' HI ..... ii* :!:Miiiiuihi:iiw ...... -'i • f .»! i FIB;' : in, inn
! iiii in ' ii ..... !iii< >i,B, jFiiiiiiiiu^^^^^^^^ ' iRi'iir ;iiii' aiiiiiiii
''niriiiiiiiiiaiiiiiniiiinnnii u m«
^^
ill 11 in i lllllll Illllllllll iiii ill MI i lllllll
lllllllllllllillllillll Illllllllll Illllllllll 111 Illll IIII H III lllllll II
111 IIJ III I lllllll 111 111 Illll I I III lllllll Illllllllll
i i iiiiiiiil|iiiiiiili i || Illlllilllll inn nil in
I lllllllllllllillllillll 1 nil I 111 1 Illllllllll I il 111
iiiiiiii mil iiiiiiiiiiiiii|iii
in i u ii iiii ii i nil in u iiiii i iiiiii 11 iiiiiiiiii iiii
i i i iiiiiiiiii i i ii i in in in ii ii i ii INI ni i in ii
i |ii in i n 11 IP i iiiiiiii i i ii i iiiii in i
iiiiiiii i in iiiiiiii iiiiiiiiii iiiiiiii i
iiiiiiiiiiiii mi iiiiiiii iiiiiiiiii iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii
i iiiiiiiiiii i iiiiiiiiii iiiiii ii
iiiiiiii iiiiiiiiii i iiiiiiii ill
Illllllllll I II lllllll III! Ill Illllllllll IIII I I III !|lll|llll I III III!! II IIIIIIIIIIIII lllllll III Illll II II II II II lllllll
Ilillill! BBBi1 ".ill, Bli:, „' IJinilll!"", BlllllllllllllllllllBIII lllllllllllliililllB II, ":Jf" \'); Blfi'lBB 'J'' Ih'"." 11 IIIBBBBIIIIIIIlBlill1 "1, i' Bn'B'1 • ill' I!,,,!!' IBJI IIIBIlBllililii::1 lljIPII, IIIB! .jlPBIilli t '1 IIIIIIIIII liBlliV1 .IIIJillilBIIPBIIli 'ail, "lI'lilBlllilllPBI' ''I'll IliilUHi ilPi!iiP|i|iii'"Hili''" P III. i. Ii V 'Bill! iBE'll'i ) I., .1''' 'JB i.Jl!! BfllEi II'IIP "'S IIB"lli,1l!IIP "Hi1 jilBBIIIi1 "i.1 ml'!. ITII'lliBliIBi'''':!'!1' l|i|n|l...p 71' 1
iiiiipift mm (•wiifc^^^^^^^^^^^^ »'i?^^^^ ,iV^^^^^^^^^^ mi iiiii mifm\ ,!;ii^^^^^^^
in, iBii .I Hi"1 iiiiiiiiipiiiiigiriiiiiii'iiiiE'PEiiLr'iiiiiii'iiiBiiiiiiiiiiii" B::B iiiiii '.i
liiiiH^^^^^^^^^^^
;,"";; i; ; ; n,; ]i n .n" ;i;ii
^ i lai;:
' , !:f«^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ iiiLi il||:
M'liiiiiE^^^
•I SiS'L,
«^^ ,. i .ni, Li!1 'Her Iiiiiiii '
1iiH^^^^
-------
of Related U.S. Environmental
Laws. (Source: EPA, Crass-cutting
Environmental Laws, 21E 4001, January 1991.)
Endangered Species Act, 16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.
The purpose of the Endangered Species Act (ESA) is
to ensure that federal agencies **>A dfpnr*'iy*ntf use
their authorities to protect and conserve endangered
and threatened species. Section 7 of the Act requires
that federal agencies prevent or modify any projects
authorized, funded, or carried out by the agencies
that are likely to jeopardize die continued existence
of any endangered species or threatened species, or
result in the destruction or adverse modification of
critical habitat of such species." Implementing
regulations are found at 50 CFR Parts 402, 450, 451,
452, and 453.
National Historic Presentation Act, 16 U.S.C. 470
The National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA), as
amended, directs federal agencies to integrate historic
preservation into all activities which either directly or
indirectly involve land use decisions. This is to
ensure federal leadership in the preservation of
prehistoric and historic resources of the United
States. Implementing regulations are found at 36
CFR Parts 60, 61, 63, 65, 68, 79 and 800.
Guidelines are found at 48 FR 190, Part IV and 53
FR 4727-46.
Archeological n«yj| Historic Preservation Act,
as amended, 16 U.S.C. 469-469c
The Archeological and Historic Preservation Act
(AHPA), as amended, furthers the policies of the
Historic Sites Act -of 1935 by providing for the
preservation of cultural resources that may be
damaged by federal or federally authorized
construction activities. The statute contains the
Reservoir Salvage Act of 1960 and amendments made
to it in 1974 (P.L.93-291, known as die Moss-
Bennett Act) and 1978 (P.L.95-625). The portions of
AHPA that may apply to federal agency projects are
Section 4
-------
,Zone Management Act,
=^^ '
(CZMA)
encourages the management of coastal zone areas and
provides grants to be used in p**'"*"'"'"0 f*»***t zone
areas. It requires that federal agencies be consistent
with the enforceable policies of state coastal zone
pnr gmtyirHmr
are. found at 50 CFR Part 35; 43 CFR Parts 19 and
8560; and 36 CFR Parts 293, 261 and 219.
1H '
Farmland Protection Policy Act, 7 U.S.C. 4201
et seq., and EPA Policy to Protect
Environmentally Significant Agricultural Lands,
September 1978.
activities whch affect a coastal zone. It is intended
to ensure mat federal activities are consistent with
II||B|I|I| , _, , . , ,, state programs for the protection and, where possible,
"' '"' eSiaacement of the nation's coastal zones. ........ As ............................
hi the Act, the rrrtTtil z»?p* include8
The purpose of the Farmland Protection Policy Act
(FPPA) is to minimize the extent to which federal
contribute to the unnecessary and
conversion of farmland to non-
programs
irreversible
waters extending to the outer limit of state submerged
land tine and ownership, adjacent shorelines and land
extending inward to the fftft*n't necessary to control
shorelines. The coastal zone includes islands,
ii iiiiiii i ii'iii ii iiiji i i1 beaches, transitional and intertidal areas, salt
marshes, etc. Implementing regulations are found at
••i™|W\*j*1^1™,f*11s^«S^25i^i^rl
et seq.
[[[ ii« wpu.'
........... ............................ ..... I!" II ', i ..... ................ "' I "I ........ • .................. "I ............... ' ........ " ....................... '" ............... ' ......... "fg ...... tfSlc ....... 3501
The purpose of the Coastal Barrier Resources Act
(CBRA) is to protect ecologically sensitive coastal
barriers along the coasts of the U.S. The Act
establishes the Coastal Barrier Resources System
(CBRS) and, with certain exceptions, prohibits new
federal ? », p^ p?!*"!*** *ru^ fin«tvri«i assistance for
development within the System. Section 5(a) of the
Act lists expenditures and assistance specifically
1 !* prohibited, while ........... Section ............ 6 ............. outlines the ............ specific
exceptions to the general prohibition. The U.S. DOI
Coastal Barrier Act Advisory Guidelines were issued
by the Fish and Wildlife Service on October 6, 1983.
| The Wflderness Act, 16 U.S.C. 1131 et seq.
mm iLiTiiNI I Jill i if III iiiiiiqiiiiiiiiiiii1 MIIII 'i in
ill!11!1:!:1!
fgtjMishcd ft
iiiiiriiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiBliiiirt ^ —* ^^^ " *
National Wilderness areas and a policy for protecting
and managing this system. With certain exceptions,
die Act prohibits motorized equipment, structures,
installations, roads, commercial enterprises, aircraft
landings, and mechanical transport. The Act permits
mining on valid claims, access to private lands, fire
control, insect and disease control, grazing, water-
reaource structures "(upon the approval of the
President), and visitor use. Implementing regulations
agricultural uses, and to assure mat federal programs
are administered in a manner ***•*, to the extent
practicable, will be compatible with state, local, and
private programs and policies to protect f*rmf*nd1
Additionally, EPA's policy is to protect the Nation's
significant/important agricultural lands from
conversions mat are irreversible and result in the loss
....................... of ......... an ............. essential .............. food .......... or ............ environmental
resource.
Implementing procedures are found, at 7 CFR Part
658 and the USD A Final Rule, Farmland Protection
Policy of July 5, 1984 (proposed revisions published
on January 8, 1987).
Executive Order 11990-Protection of Wetlands
(May 24, 1977, 42 FR 26961).
The purpose of Executive Order 11990 is to
"minimize die destruction, loss or degradation of
wetlands and to preserve and enhance the natural and
beneficial values of wetlands". To meet these
objectives, the Order requires federal agencies, in
planning their actions, to consider alternatives to
wetland sites and limit potential damage if an activity
affecting a wetland cannot be avoided. The Order
applies to:
i
• acquisition, management, and disposition of
federal lands and facilities;
• construction and improvement projects
which are undertaken, financed or assisted
by federal agencies;
• federal activities and programs affecting land
use, including but not limited to water and
related land resources planning, regulation,
and licensing activities.
EPA's implementing procedures "Statement of
Procedures on Floodplain Management and Wetlands
Protection" were issued on January 5, 1979 (see
IIIIIIMlllii i
ifi I
4-38
ii i ii i i iiiiiiii in i IK i
in ii i u 1
• n mini 1 itii "lull
1,11 1 li II]
1 11 pi 111 1 II IP
-------
Appendix A of EPA's NEPA regulations at 40 CFR
Part 6).
Executive Order 11988-Hoodplain Management,
May 24, 1977.
Executive Order 11988 requires federal agencies to
avoid to die extent possible the long and snort-term
advene impacts associated with the occupancy and
modification of floodplains and to avoid direct and
indirect support of fioodplain development wherever
mere is a practicable alternative. In accomplishing
mis objective, "each agency shall provide leadership
and shall take action to reduce the risk of flood loss,
to minimim tha imput of floods oo human safety,
health, and welfare, and to restore and preserve the
natural and beneficial values served by floodplains in
carrying out its responsibilities* for the following
actions:
• acquiring, managing, and disposing of
federal lands and facilities;
• providing federally-undertaken, financed, or
mtmetrj construction and improvements;
• conducting federal activities and programs
attending land use, including but not limited
to water and related land resources planning,
regulation, and licensing activities.
EPA's implementing procedures were issued on
January 5, 1979 (see Protection of Wetlands above).
On February 10,1978, the Water Resources Council
published "THnndplain TWanagMfigflf Guidelines" at 40
FR 6030. In 1987, the Federal Emergency
Management Agency issued "Further Advice on EO
11988 Fioodplain Management*.
4-39
-------
•Ill llliillli i 1(11111 llllll|ii|| HIM
nil nil nun i •• n i in in i i i limn IP ii rii'iM'.jiiiiiNiiri'1
:i ' •„, jut« .'iiiir'liiiiiiiKniiii.iuSi r.,«!«!! i-t**
mi iiiii iiiiipi'iinii iini iiiiini' TII'ifi'iiiuii i: 'iiiiiiiiiiiii'''!!'! ,1 "iiiu1 iiiii'uiiiiiiiiiBi'U
i'iniiji A,,, unil!,"'1!
'i, "".iill,! mill 'liilillliBj'!"!
||||t;l||||||n
Illllll 'I-IIIIIKII'IIW^^
...... IE
"Mi ..... il:l!iit!l:S
..... M ...... *;' .iiiiiwiFii j.jSs ;*Jt '*. • ^ittt \ '••-, • W: ^-i^3~ iiil ,t;i '
-"' i
.....
• ..... iiiw
i ..... '"'ii ...... i ....... iiiiBiii ..... !1 ...... i ..... I. ' : ' 'iiiiin: ..... i «; (: i1.::1! !NiTiii!i/:aiiisH '<(•: iiiiiiii .""in . i > .......
r'li1 it' ' 3'.' ; il t ift "ft" .....
':> i •
^ i ; iiiii-iiiBi1'' av,, i -a; ......... • \ "nniit ..... iiiirv , ..... in: iii'itiiit mil ijitii'i'i ;j jii
I:NI iiiii" , 'Piii'i'''iiiiiii'ii, "','(„, 'jiiiiii! i.-'iiijit Mil'x'u'"i i'.
..... I1 ..... ii 'I. ...... » ....... 1 'ill .' ..... L tin i
........... iiltt' " iiiiiiiiii
-------
States with Environmental Policy Acts. (Source: Council on Environmental
Quality. 1992. Environmental Quality. 22nd Annual Report)
Sixteen states, the District of Columbia, and Puerto Rico have environmental policy acts
or "little NEPAs."
State
Arkansas
California
Connecticut
District of Columbia
Florida
Hawaii
Maryland
Minnesota
Montana
New York
North Carolina
Puerto Rico
South Dakota
Virginia
Washington
Wisconsin
Citation
Aik. Stat Ann. §8-1-101 (1987)
CaL Pub. Res. Code 5521000 et seq. (West 1982)
Conn. Gen. Stat Ann. 5522a-14 to 22a-20 (West Supp. 1974-75)
D. C. Code Ann. 1981 §6481 et seq.
Fla. Stat. §§380.92 et seq.
Hawaii Rev. Stat. §§343-1 to 343-8 (1985)
Ind. Code Am. §§13-1-10-1 to 13-1-10-8 (West 1987)
Md. Nat. Res. Code Ann. §§1-301 to 1-305 (1983 and Supp. 1987)
Mass. Gen. Law* Ann. cfa. 30, §§61-€2H
Minn. Stat. Ann. §§116D.01 et seq. (West 1977 and Supp. 1981)
Mont. Code Ann. §§75-1-101 to -105; §75-1-201 (1981)
N.Y. EnvtL Conserv. Law §§8-0101 to 8*0117 (McKinney 1984)
N.C. Gen. Stat. 55113A-1 to 10 (1978)
P.R. Laws Ann. tit. 12, §§1121-1127
SJX Codified Laws Ann. §§34A-9-l to 34A-9-12
Va. Code §§10.1-1200 through 10.1-1212 (Subject to redefinition by the Virginia General
Assembly in 1992)
Wash. Rev. Code S543.21C.010-43.21C.910 (1974); Wash. Admin. Code R. 197-11
Wis. Stat. §1.11 et seq.; DeptrtnKnt of Natural Resources WEPArufcs are found mWis.Adnrin.
Code NR 150.01-40
4-41
-------
' I" ! ..... •:' ..... :-!f',fi1St ...... IE ..... Si!1'1! i'lliy'l ! 'II lEilsV Jr' I !j ....... 'tiflii,: Cii'iSit.W"*: ..... It,1'* "til, Ml ..... US t
• tliii, :, i11" ?;< jwlf , '•;•< iiii'siJi itlt ii» lioif"1 ' #" :.i ii-Biiii1! it,' UK1' "*XvSS ", t&f'&'kl
-i1 ', SIM V'Tl: ;!'!"; ' ..... Ill' il'ilii'iillii!,: :!' ..... jiJEiliii I ....... I"1! ..... 'II' i)HiHl'JKi::' ...Wttf
''' , ft'iiiJ 'ii •; ,s F-li" W ..... Hi" ivils j.fUJti'f u; " • :iiilil i iiBFF 'ini Ti
^ I'iriil ..... !<• Ililillli'Villiiillrit
iafiSi' • i«ili:::,i iii;. iniii ..... li
Hi Ml: :,; .^i
f' .;k • iKiiifa* 1; '"iHai 'ililli f 'fiifTM ..... WKI.*.*f fr igii Piiiil H,M • '3 i. ' J" ,,i ........ .:. f!;1l!ii rfil ....... i, ? ..... i Kit "11; * '-i'f iiiiiUl1 >¥' ..... P'l ;
% 2J7-J7 ............ : ................... ................. ................................... ........ ...............
it iWlf ,*ft 'iiBS?$!lf'' ilSliii; lilii -I; "'I iiiili:
iimnH iiiiiniHiiiii'i!'1 j
: ,um::; ..... iininiiiiiiil'ir, iiiiiiiiiiiinrn ..... 3 ..... 1'liiniiiiiiiivippiiii ..... iiiiiiiViiiiiiiiii1:"1 IMJIIVIII iiiniiiiiLiiliifiivn ...... IP ..... n/iii!' f '"iiiiiiiTifiii; W" iii' "'! 11:11" m"i i uriiir1 ''> /l
"''!',; ..... IK ........ it' UK ni tiiiiiiiliiii iiiiriiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii ..... i,* nni ...... lit jipii'iiiHii'iir111!1! ..... imiiciiimli: ' uinrjii1:1" pmi: nip;. il''iiipiip;piipGiip'iiii«ipi|ii|pp|iiiiiiiiiiiit>!iiipipiii
l, 1,!,, , """""!", „!,„!!! '' ..... „!""""' ..... ""!!"" '", ,!,!,'„„ '!' ,! ,„ !" ..... '!!! ...... ""ii!1 '' '"'",!' ,''!!,! l!!'1"1 , ,!"!"""" ""!!'"!, """'l!'1!"!!
, i ' FI • i 'IT; i n; ;," PM' i" " P i :i ..... pipfi lint p; 'i pi" IIPIP i iinii iiinDiii , ' 'u iiiiiEipiini i IILIII ........ ''i ' ii
....... n • ' , *p PP ' jLiitiiipMinpi1 ,: JP , P" ihl11 mi" i 'ii
PPilJIIIllP.I ' illP'P jl"!,! "IJ
1 ................... l ...... , ........... ; .......... i! ..... i< ....... l ................... IIP ............ iiKu ..... ........ ..... -I ..MI .: ............ iiin ...... in;ii. .......... '',1, .............. i-hirl .................... >n ....... ........ , ........ : ..... > ...................... l ....... :s ..... > ....... I ........... < ....... '' i111!:':::::!:":' ...... :
IIIHX^^ illllIM^^^^^^^^^ ....... ft-', t ;:,i;: -, • •'JHtHW'^!*! ...... '•! ..... I. "Oil" ..... iSlllUB' ....... R ........ 'Hi! ..... i
li'lli,!:!'1!!!:1!1:;^!!!!!!:!!!!"!!!! lllKiiiiiiii/'iiliiiilillli'llllII
i:',,,11!!! ,HTM Ii; rf*, !'i: , • Xi^'tf';! 9'" Inllln,!:s*uj *,,II",.' ,",:„;„ llii';!!!,,;:!!II|iiJK illlillillKiiiili' 111!1!:! . i
illllilllh.lllillll'iiillhliJIlllllllllli'l
iiiicviii'iiiiiiiiaiili, ,i '••iiiiiiiiiiiniF' Nit'iiiiiin, „ 'xi ."n ."'inii1 in:" i i;
U>m .MB^fi^Ftmri' Xftlft.f >*•»:: Wtflii1* Jliiiiiiii/llllq'lilfilfiiiSiiilSililllliiliiilililllirjl SlIIKimTllir Vi;:;!"1! >;!',; ,1':1111:!
IIIIBI,; ^iiilliK'nn' • 'BB""lilllii)!1 , ,!l|i||lllll!!llll|ii| JEi'lili iifi liiil!"!!!! llll,, ill1 <: ',! ir
i', |,i?! S'liipi:,11i<", jlw'i1 aiii|!,i' 'ifii1'.iiiiinpi'ifdiliiiiiiniii11!. iliniiii1 msA iff1:''i^iijlillii1"ihliiiiiiKiiii! f piiiaiiiiiii'ii 'SiS;|* w, i;I";"•.f; ji'iliill'Pi jjufsimiliipiiirii,IN
I it:, n: ipiiKnikip1 T'i
....... :U: ..... linpillhilll niiilllfi'iilllll
K^^^
IHK^^^
",,;; In 'i'illHi:
,p, ,i i i1' mp"11' 'in- il|l: in11" n ,i TI IP ,i WPP ii^j"' R "IIIIIIIIPI:P pip
IP 'i IP p •ppiiliiiipliiiin n: an IP ijnpn iiiiipiiiiiiiiiiiiili" , -p, ":i JPVP ipiiiiiinii i pmi'
n' iiiiiHUini, iiiigniiiiiii sii;i i !»" riiiaii ,,iiiiii;iiiiiiiiii "ii w .iiiigiiiiiiiiii • i' i*,"' ir, "iiiiiiini : JiinHi iJiiiHinnii;, iiiili
1 l 111 II II I 1
II llllli I 111 11111 i III 1 111 III III
II III I llll lilllll I ill IIIIIIII ii 111 111 I lllllllll 111
•I 111 111 III III IIIIIII III II1111 III IIIIIIII I lllllllll III II I lllllllll
Illiiiilill Hi iiilllllll lllllllll illlill ill 11 1 11 1 nil mill 11 "ill Ii MI ililil llilliVi Ill M'liiilllilillllllll II Ii I1 111 In ililli
lllllllll1 i i nil I Ill lll'i
llll lllllllll 4 i| I11 I'll 11! 1 1111 "II lllllllll lull II Iiiili1 III I I'l 111
(III1 lllllllll II
lllllllll
I" III
1 111 I lllllllll lllllllll 1 111 IP III III llll llll 111 Hill
-------
States with Limited Environmental Review Requirements Established by Statute, Executive Order, or Other
Administrative Directives. (Source: Council on Environmental Quality. 1992. Environmental Quality. 22nd
Annual Report)
Eighteen state* ind the District of Columbia have limited environment*! review
requirements established by statute, executive order, or other administrative directive*.
State
Arizona
s
Arkansas
California
Reqvtraaua*
An Executive Order mandates that (he Governor's
Commiuion on Arizona Envlrofimentev«lu«t«envlronmenUt
problem*, make recommendation* to the Ooveroor, tnd
eiubll*h • clearinghouse for the exchange of information
relitlni to envlronmeiiUil problem* and their solution*.
la addition to • 'little NBPA," Ark. Code Ana. 115-41-108
provMei tbtl the Arkansas Oime and Fish CommlMhM murt
prepite in EIS for cutting timber on Comml«i!on tend.
In wldlUon to • 'little NBPA,' the following California
Code* require environmental impact report*:
Cal. Food & Agric. Cods $33487 (aaw eoofuuciion or
repair* of dairy farm*)
Cal. Oov. Code §7075 (eUabliihmentof enterpriie zone*)
Cal. Oov. Code 17087.5 (Initial *tudy and notice of
preparation under Employment and Economic Incentive Act)
Cal. Oov. Code 151119 (limberland production zones;
exemption)
Cal. dov. Code {65950.1 (extemlon of time for EIR for
plannlnf and zoning of development project*)
Cat. Health A Safety Code |33333.3 (preparation and
adoption of community redevelopment plan*)
Cal. Health ft Safety Code |56040 (implementation and
adminirtralion for large Kale urban development)
Cal. Pub. Re*. Code 16873.2 (oil and ga* leatei on tide and
submerged land* and bed* of navigable riven and lake*)
Cal. Pub. Re*. Code 125540.4 (power facility and tile
certification)
Cal. Pub. Re*. Code 130718 (Implementation of port
development under California Coaital Act)
Cal. Sir. ft H. Code |199.9 (mas* Iranill guldeway cystem)
Delaware
District of Columbia
Georgia
Louliiana
Massachusetts
Michigan
Cal. Water Code 113389 (applicability of BIS* to Clean
Water Act)
In the Del. Code Ann. lit. 7, Chapter 66 concern* wetlands
permit*, and Chapter 20, coastal zone permit*.
In addition to a 'little NBPA,* D.C. Code Ann. 143-1903
involve* public utility environmental impact statements.
The Code of Georgia provide* that on certain type* of action*
on a case by case basis, the state may require that an
environmental assessment be prepared; EA* would be
reviewed by the Hate Department of Natural Resources.
Environmental Protection Division.
La. Rev. Stat. Ann. 130:2021 (West 1991) coven interstate
compact* on environmental control, for which the Louisiana
Department of Environmental Quality serve* a* a
clearinghouse for all statements of environmental impact to
be prepared or reviewed by date agencies (other than
Department of Transportation and Development), In
accordance with NEPA. Hie Department of Wildlife, and
Fiiherles i* responsible for review and comment on any BIS
regarding fish and wildlife resources or their habitat, as well
as the discharge of dredge and fill material into state waters.
The Department of Health and Human Resources is
responsible for EIS* regarding public health.
In addition to a 'little NEPA,' Mass. Gen. Laws Ann. ch.
I11H, |30 concern low-level radioactive waste facility
licensing.
Executive Order 1974-4 require* each Kate agency to prepare
a formal environmental assessment for all major activities of
the agency having a possible significant impact on the
environment or human life. Mich. Comp. Laws Ann.
1281.655 et seq. coven EISs for sand dune mining and
model zoning plans under the Lake* and Riven Sand Dune
Protection and Management Act.
-------
II
•irS
Ml
I
IIP !
ill
NowJsrwy
aril ill
Ujjl
ii£
North DakoU
ins mi
: I -i" rv * I*
ii&
m
i!:l IB
«IK t«
hi
Pi
II
|:||
til
III! "'
Ml!
§| Washington
-i i « -»lsr
i:« •!
iW
Wlicoiuin
4t
ni in
ii
. wbinil to tb» D*p*rto«n» of Envlroftm»nttJ
Protteikw • dttoripiloo of tfct tHvIiroffinwaUlltt^Kt of aU
major cwwtnwtloa proJeoU. NJ. Rtv. Slat. 113:19-7
pfovkfti for EISi jot eucb projtcU M ootital prot»cljoa, N J,
Rtv. Sut. 127:23-23.5 eovtn Eilt for th« New Itney T"
TumplA««uUK)ffty(li!|hwayia4Kltompibi). NJ. Rev. Sut.
52:l3F-4 rtfirt to environmental Impact auumtnU on
13S
------- |