CUMULATIVE EFFECTS
ASSESSMENT
August 10-12, 1999
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
New York, New York
PRESENTED BY
LARRY CANTER, PH.D.
AND
SAM ATKINSON, PH.D.
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT TRAINING
P.O. BOX 2301
NORMAN, OKLAHOMA 73072-2301
Phone or Fax (405)321-2730
E-mail: envimptr@aol.com
Web Site: www.eiatraining.com
-------
CUMULATIVE EFFECTS ASSESSMENT
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Ch. 1 Introduction
Ch. 2 Procedures for CEA
Ch. 3 Special Issues in CEA
Ch. 4 Scoping for Cumulative Effects
Ch. 5 Methods for CEA
Ch. 6 Prediction Methods for Cumulative Effects
Ch. 7 Strategic Environmental Assessment and Cumulative
Effects Considerations
Ch. 8 CEA Case Studies
Ch. 9 Air Quality Cumulative Effects Assessment
— A Practical Example
Ch.10 - Effluent Trading Programs — Available Information and
Expanding Mitigation Options for Surface Water Quality
Impacts
Ch. 11 Monitoring of Cumulative Effects
Ch. 12 Mitigation of Cumulative Effects ~ Biodiversity and
Ecosystem Management Considerations
Ch. 13 Computer-Based Technologies for Information
Procurement and Communication
Ch. 14 Barriers, Guidelines, and Research Needs
-------
CHAPTER 1
INTRODUCTION
Although the terms "cumulative impacts" and cumulative effects" were
used in the 1970s in several countries' environmental impact assessment
(EIA) legislation, regulations, or guidelines, it was not until the mid-
to-late 1980s that the terms began to be incorporated in practice. As
contained herein, the two terms will be used synonymously. Accordingly,
the purpose of this book is to present the state-of-the-art of the
worldwide practice of cumulative effects assessment (CEA). The emphasis
is on principles, procedures, methods, monitoring, and mitigation for
cumulative effects. Illustrations from case studies are also included.
This introductory chapter highlights definitions, types of
cumulative effects, and key principles of CEA. Chapter 2 is focused on
several examples of step-wise procedures which can be used for project-
level and broader-scale studies. Five special issues are addressed in
Chapter 3, including delineating spatial and temporal boundaries,
identifying "reasonably foreseeable future actions" in the environs of the
proposed action, defining "baseline conditions," and determining the
significance of predicted cumulative effects. Scoping as an analytical
process in CEA is the subject of Chapter 4. Chapters 5 and 6 summarize
both generic methods for cumulative effects identification and prediction
methods for quantifying cumulative effects, respectively. Chapter 7
relates CEA to strategic environmental assessments. Several case studies
related to CEA are summarized in Chapter 8. Chapter 9 contains an
extensive case study focused on cumulative air quality effects at military
installations. Relationships between surface water-focused impact
studies, CEAs, and effluent trading programs (ETPs) are addressed in
Chapter 10 along with expanded mitigation options provided by ETPs. The
purposes of, and planning for, monitoring programs for key cumulative
effects are the subjects of Chapter 11. Chapter 12 highlights
biodiversity and ecosystem management as special issues in mitigation
planning for cumulative effects. Numerous World-wide Web sites related
directly or indirectly to CEA are identified in Chapter 13. Finally,
Chapter 14 includes a discussion of barriers and research needs related to
CEA.
The refereed journal articles, reports, papers, and books used in
the preparation of this book were identified from computer-based
literature searches and contacts with professional colleagues throughout
the world. Literature searches of several databases (Biosis, NTIS,
Enviroline, and Water Resources Abstracts) were conducted in 1992, 1994,
and 1996. Professional colleagues provided information via questionnaire
surveys (Burris, 1994; and Cooper, 1995) and contacts at professional
conferences and training courses. As part of this process, several
extensive bibliographies of articles, reports, papers, and books related
to cumulative effects and CEA were identified; examples include Peterson,
et al. (1987), Sonntag, et al. (1987), Williamson and Hamilton (1989),
Kennedy (1994), Council on Environmental Quality (1997a), and Cumulative
Effects Assessment Working Group (1997).
IMPORTANCE OF CEA
Three examples of recent studies which identified the importance and
challenges related to CEA will be highlighted. Although two of the three
1-1
-------
derive from a single-country emphasis, they all have implications both
nationally and internationally. The first involved a 1994 questionnaire
survey to ascertain the perspectives of academia regarding the strengths
and limitations of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and the
EIA process in the United States (Canter and Clark, 1997). The survey was
part of a comprehensive study of NEPA effectiveness and efficiency
conducted in conjunction with the 25th anniversary of NEPA. The survey
participants included 31 academicians comprised of 12 different
disciplines from 21 states; the majority of the participants had over 20
years of experience in teaching, research, and professional practice
related to the NEPA process. Several strengths of NEPA were identified;
the two most important were that NEPA encourages agencies and decision
makers to acknowledge potential environmental consequences to the public,
thus opening up the decision-making process; and to think about
environmental consequences before environmental and/or.fiscal resources
are committed. Th« survey^participants-also 'prioritized-topical;issues
needing-- improvement; --two ~ high : priority--ones. I Vere r-the- need^:for
methodological approaches for addressing cumulative effects and reductions
in institutional barrie'rs related'to-the-analysis, of-cumulative effects.
Specific recommendations related to CEA were that the Council on
Environmental Quality (CEQ) produce a handbook for practitioners on how to
conduct CEA, that training workshops be held based on the handbook, and
that the guidelines for CEA documentation in EAs (environmental
assessments, or "preliminary studies") and EZSs (environmental impact
statements, or "comprehensive studies") be developed, with particular
emphasis given to connected actions and how they should be addressed. The
handbook was published in early 1997 (Council on Environmental Quality,
1997a); however, the other recommendations have not been accomplished.
The CEQ in the United States recently issued the summary results
from the above noted comprehensive study of NEPA (Council on Environmental
Quality, 1997b). Based on inputs from several hundred EIA professionals
in governmental agencies, the private sector, consulting, and academia, it
was determined that the greatest benefit of NEPA is its provision of a
framework for collaboration between federal agencies and those individuals
and groups subject to the environmental impacts of agency decisions. The
report also noted that five elements are critical to the continuing
improvement of the NEPA (EIA) process; one was the use of an
interdisciplinary place-based approach in information analysis and
synthesis, including attention to CEA. Of particular importance is the
need to use appropriate methods and tools for CEA, with the ongoing.
challenge being to refine approaches and to realize that a better decision
rather than a perfect analysis of cumulative effects, is the goal of NEPA
and EIA professionals.
Additionally, the recently completed International Study of the
Effectiveness of Environmental Assessment integrated trends, needs, and
opportunities in EIA. The 1993-96 study identified four challenges
related to strengthening the practice of EIA (Sadler, 1996): (1)
establishing standards for quality performance in EIA, for. exampler.
through codifying international guidelines and principles; (2) upgrading
EIA processes and activities, notably to improve quality control, public
involvement and the consideration of cumulative effects; (3) extending
strategic environmental assessment (SEA) as an integral part of decision
making, through the development of practical guidance materials; and (4)
sharpening SEA as a_suatainability instrument through the use of pilot
projects. Regarding methods for CEA, those that focus on source-effect
linkages based on a limited number of common denominators were noted as
desirable. In this context, "sources" denote the pattern and timing of
activities that cause or will potentially initiate environmental change,
while "effects" denote the syndrome of impacts and long-term changes that
occur in response to perturbation and stress. Challenges related to CEA
1-2
-------
include documenting case experience (success stories) on how these issues
can be addressed, institutionally and methodologically, at the project and
at strategic levels.
As a further observation, as the scope of the EIA process is
expanding to include socio-economic impacts along with impacts on the
biophysical environment, as . well as larger-scale issues such as
biodiversity changes, sustainable development, economic valuation of
natural resources and impacts,, acid rain, and global climate change, the
importance of* incorporating CEA within the process is increasing (Rees,
1995). Appropriate consideration of global climate change within NEPA
analyses has been addressed by Cushman, et al. (1989). Sustainable
development considerations and their incorporation within the EIA process,
including within CEA, represent an emerging theme in the practice of EIA.
For example, Barrow (j.997) indicated that CEA broadens the focus of
project-level EIA and is important in the context of incorporating
sustainable development concerns within the EIA process. Further,
Lawrence L1997) suggested that environmental sustainability should be
addressed within CEAs conducted at both project and strategic levels of
analysis. Due to the broader focus of strategic environmental assessments
(SEAs) on policies, plans, and programs, it is vital that such studies
incorporate cumulative effects concerns.
In a related example, watershed-related planning has come to the
forefront in recent years within the United States. Such planning is
being used to examine point and nonpoint sources of pollution in river
basins or segments thereof, as well as current and future water uses under
a variety of development scenarios. Watersheds are also being used as
geographical boundaries for effluent trading programs. Cumulative effects
considerations should logically be incorporated in watershed planning and
management efforts.
Cumulative effects should also be incorporated into social (or
socio-economic) impact assessment (SIA) (Barrow, 1997). However, due to
the historical attention directed to bio-physical impacts, SIA is not a
part of the EIA process in all countries. Further, and as will become
evident herein, CEA practice to date has been primarily focused on effects
on environmental media and natural biophysical resources, including valued
ecosystem components (VECs).
DEFINITIONS OF KEY TERMS
Cumulative impacts, cumulative effects, and cumulative environmental
changes are terms which are often used interchangeably (Spaling, 1997).
However, there are a range of considerations included in these terms. For
example, the following definitions have been promulgated for the terms
"cumulative impacts" or "cumulative effects":
(1) Cumulative impacts refer to the accumulation of human-induced
changes in valued environmental components across space and
over time; such impacts can occur in an additive or
interactive manner (Spaling, 1997).
(2) Cumulative impacts are effects which combine from different
projects and which persist to the long-term detriment of the
environment (Gilpin, 1995).
(3) Cumulative effects refers to progressive environmental
degradation over time arising from a range of activities
throughout an area or region, each activity considered in
1-3
-------
(2) CEA ii the process of systematically analyzing and evaluating
cumulative environmental change (Spaling and Smit, 1993).
(3) CEA should address several issues such as tine and space
crowding of perturbations and synergisms. The following
definition encompasses these and other issues (Court, Wright,
and Guthrie, 1994): cumulative effects assessment involves
predicting and assessing likely existing, past and reasonably
foreseeable future effects on the environment arising from
perturbations which are time and/or space-crowded, synergisms,
indirect, or constitute nibbling. Time crowding refer to
perturbations which are so close in time that the effects of
one are not dissipated before the next one occurs. Space
crowding relates to perturbations which are so close in space
that their effects overlap. Different types of perturbations
occurring in the same area which may interact to produce
qualitatively and quantitatively different responses by
comparison to the receiving environment are called synergisms.
Cumulative effects can also be produced at some time or
distance from the initial perturbation, or by a complex
pathway; these are called indirect effects. Finally,
"nibbling" refers to small changes from multiple similar
actions.
(4) CEAs are typically expected to (Cumulative Effects Assessment
Working Group, 1997): assess effects over a larger (i.e.,
"regional") area that may cross jurisdictional boundaries;
assess effects during a longer period of time into the past
and future; consider effects on VECs due to interactions with
other actions, and not just the effects of the single project
under review; include other past, existing and future (e.g.,
reasonably foreseeable) actions; and evaluate significance in
consideration of other than just local, direct effects.
(5) CEA is both holistic and integrative (Duinker, 1994).
Holistic suggests that the potential impacts of the proposed
action and nearby past, current, and future actions are
considered. Integrative suggests an environmental component
perspective; for example, a natural ecosystem "integrates" the
impacts from various actions and adapts in response to the
stresses.
The above definitions of CEA are wide ranging; however, they tend to
be focused on the process of identifying and quantifying cumulative
effects, and on appropriate considerations in assessing the significance
of such effects. Necessary environmental management (including monitoring
of cumulative effects as well as implementation of mitigation strategic*)
within the spatial and temporal boundaries is not stressed;.,however, such
emphases may be.the most important aspects of CEA. jFor example, Vestal,
et al. (1995) suggested that the larger^ goal- of^ CEA is- to develop
appropriate management strategies for cumulative effect* (Vestal, et al./
1995). Further, Williamson (1993) noted that-the combined objectives of
CEA and resource management planning are: to generate logical, scientific/
and timely...problem.^cumulative effects) analyses; to bring . agencies
together collaboratively,, to. develop, an overall, management plan and
proactive, measurable resource goals; and to meld those results into
comprehensive species and habitat maintenance and enhancement blueprints
for the ecosystem of concern.
CEA is specified in the EZA legislation of several countries. Four
examples are Australia (Court, Wright, and Guthrie, 1994), Canada (Drouin
1-5
-------
and LaBlanc, 1994), New Zealand (Dixon and Montz, 1995), and the United
States of America (Council on Environmental Quality, 1997a). Country
legislation, regulations, and/or guidelines may either directly specify
CEA, or they may infer that cumulative effects should be considered within
the EIA process. The fundamental premise in relevant legislation/
regulations/guidelines is that CEA is an issue that should be an integral
part of the EIA process (Burris and Canter, 1997b). In other words, CEA
should typically be included as part of an EA or EIS for a proposed
action, and not as a separate study or separate EA or EIS (Kreake, 1996).
However, in the absence of specific regulations or guidelines which define
"triggers" for initiating CEA, the decision to actually conduct a CEA
within the EIA process for a proposed project may be driven by actual or
possible declines in potentially affected natural resources (Williamson,
1993). In this situation, separate studies of experienced cumulative
effects in relevant geographical areas may serve as such "triggers."
Three examples of these types of separate studies are listed in Table 1.1.
The studies listed in Table 1.1 may have been prompted by other
environmental laws; for example, water quality control laws. Further,
cumulative effects could be directly or indirectly included in air quality
laws as well as resource protection and species protection laws.
TYPES OF CUMULATIVE EFFECTS
Cumulative effects can result from multiple pathways and be
manifested on both biophysical and socio-economic resources. Table 1.2
illustrates the range of types of cumulative effects (Council on
Environmental Quality, 1997a). The CEQ definition of cumulative effects
is primarily related to multiple actions and both additive and interactive
processes. As a further illustration of the importance of the analysis of
pathways in CEA, Peterson, et al. (1987) suggested a systematic typology
as shown in Figure 1.1. The identified pathways are self-explanatory; for
example, Pathway 2 includes biomagnification of chemicals within various
organisms associated with terrestrial or aquatic food chains. Finally,
Barrow (1997) summarized cumulative effects into the following categories:
(1) incremental (additive) (repeated additions of a similar nature
a+a+a+a...);
(2) interactive processes (a + b + c + n ... results in a
significant impact);
(3) sequential effects;
(4) complex causation;
(5) synergistic impacts;
(6) impact occurs when a threshold is passed as a consequence of
some 'trigger effect' (e.g., 'chemical time bomb' or
'biological time bomb');
(7) irregular 'surprise effects'; and
(8) impacts triggered by a feedback process ('antagonistic' -
feedback which reinforces a trend; or 'ameliorative' -
feedback which counters a trend).
1-6
-------
Table 1.1: Examples of Studies on Experienced Cumulative
Effects from Multiple Projects/Activities
Case Study
Reference
Cumulative effects on aquatic
ecosystems in the Peace,
Athabasca, and Slave River
basins in Alberta, Canada
Wrona (1996)
Cumulative effects on
phytoplankton of phosphorus
loading reductions and the
invasion of zebra mussels in
Lake Erie in the USA
Nicholla and Hopkins
(1993)
Cumulative effects on benthic
macroinvertebrates, rooted
aquatic plants, migrating birds,
and mink in the ecosystem of the
upper Mississippi River in the
USA
Wiener, et al. (1995)
1-7
-------
Table 1.2: Types of Cumulative Effects (Council on Environmental Quality,
1997a)
Additive Process
Interactive Process
Single Action
>,, £~ I
Type 1 — Repeated
"additive" effects
a single proposed
project.
from
Example: Construction
of a new road through a
national park,
resulting in continual
draining of road salt
onto nearby vegetation.
Type 2 — Stressors
from a single source
that interact with
receiving biota to have
an "interactive"
(nonlinear) net effect.
Example: Organic
compounds, including
PCBs, that biomagnify
up food chains and
exert disproportionate
toxicity on raptors and
large mammals.
Multiple Actions
Type 3 — Effects
arising from multiple
sources (projects,
point sources, or
general effects
associated with
development) that
affect environmental
resources additively.
Example: Agricultural
irrigation, domestic
consumption, and
industrial cooling
activities that all
contribute to drawing
down a ground water
aquifer.
Type 4 -- Effects
arising from multiple
sources that affect
environmental resources
in an interactive
(i.e., countervailing
or synergistic)
fashion.
Example: Discharges of
nutrients and heated
water to a river that
combine to cause an
algal bloom and
subsequent loss of
dissolved oxygen that
is greater than the
additive effects of
each pollutant.
1-8
-------
PATHWAY 1
PATHWAY 2
PATHWAY 3
PATHWA
SLOWLY
DISS1PATIVE
(additivtt)
MAGNIFICATION
(interactive)
MULTIPLE
IMPACTS
(•dditiv*)
SYNERGU
RELATIONS
(interact!
\
\
\
PERSISTENT ADDITIONS
FROM ONE PROCESS
COMPOUNDING EFFECTS
INVOLVING TWO OR MORE PROG
PATHWAYS THAT LEAD TO
CUMULATIVE EFFECTS
Figure 1.1:
Baaic Functional Pathways That Contrihut* to Cumulatii
Kffecta (Ptttaurson, «t al.r 1987)
1-9
-------
PRINCIPLES OF CEA
While there may be variations in the definitions and terminology
associated with cumulative effects, most efforts to incorporate CEA within
the EIA process have focused on considering the proposed action in
relation to surrounding projects; appropriately defining the baseline
conditions; and addressing combined effects from the proposed action and
surrounding activities on environmental media, natural resources, and
socio-economic systems. Regarding EZA practice in the United States,
eight principles as shown in Table 1.3, along with related descriptive
paragraphs, have recently been delineated for conducting CEAs (Council on
Environmental Quality, 1997a). The principles were derived from the
definition of "cumulative impacts" in the CEQ regulations, from surveys of
the experiences of EIA practitioners, and from a review of published
literature. They should be considered in the planning and conduction of
CEA within the EIA process. Further, they routinely refer to resources
(such as air, surface water, ground water, timber, fisheries, etc.),
ecosystems (such as wetlands and coastal zones), and human communities
(the socio-economic environment). Finally, the principles are
sufficiently generic so that they can be applied in the worldwide practice
of CEA. Further, they can be applied to the specific actions of
individual governmental agencies.
Although not specifically stated, the 8 principles listed in Table
1.3 will require the collaboration of multiple governmental agencies if
they.are to be effectively applied in CEAs. Such collaboration can be
Achieved via scoping and informal meetings, as well as through the
development of bi-lateral to multi-lateral cooperative agreements between
agencies. Of particular importance is the need for collaboration and
cooperation in conjunction with monitoring cumulative effects and the
implementation of appropriate mitigation programs.
SUMMARY
The following key points summarize the topics addressed in this
introductory chapter:
(1) The interest in and incorporation of CEA within the EIA
process is being increasingly recognized for both project-
level and strategic-level impact studies. It is vitally
important that CEA be within and not separate from the EIA
process.
(2) A key word used herein is "multiple." For example, there are
multiple definitions of cumulative effects and CEA, with the
outcome being the need to recognize multiple actions,
pathways, receptors, and types of effects when cumulative
effects considerations are included in the EIA process.
(3) CEA principles suggest the need for a broadened perspective on
effects, including the need for effective scoping, recognition
of transboundary concerns, and incorporation of the concept of
carrying capacity regarding affected resources, ecosystems,
and human communities.
(4) Institutional collaboration and cooperation will be needed for
managing cumulative effects, with the term managing including
both monitoring and the use of effective mitigation programs.
1-10
-------
Table 1.3: Principles of Cumulative Effects Assessment
(Council on Environmental Quality, 1997a)
1. Cumulative effects are caused by the aggregate of past,
present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions.
The effects of a proposed action on a given resource,
ecosystem, and human community include the present and future
effects added to the effects that have taken place in the past.
Such cumulative effects must also be added to effects (past,
present, future) caused by all other actions that affect the
same resource. _^__^____
2. Cumulative effects are the total effect, including both direct
and indirect effects, on a given resource, ecosystem, and human
community or" all actions taken, no matter who (federal,
nonfederal, or private) has taken the actions.
Individual effects from disparate activities may add up or
interact to cause additional effects not apparent when looking
at the individual effects one at a time. The additional
effects contributed by actions unrelated to the proposed action
must be included in the analysis of cumulative effects.
3. Cumulative effects need to be analyzed in terms of the specific
resource, ecosystem, and human community being affected.
Environmental effects are often evaluated from the perspective
of the proposed action. Analyzing cumulative effects requires
focusing on the resource, ecosystem and human community that
may be affected and developing an adequate understanding of how
the resources are susceptible to effects.
4. It is not practical to analyze the cumulative effects of an
action on the universe; the list of environmental effects must
focus on those that are truly meaningful.
For cumulative effects analysis to help the decisionmaker and
inform interested parties, it must be limited through scoping
to effects that can be meaningfully evaluated. The boundaries
for evaluating cumulative effects should be expanded to the
point at which the resource is no longer affected significantly
or the effects are no longer of interest to affected parties.
5. Cumulative effects on a given resource, ecosystem, and human
community are rarely aligned vith political or administrative
boundaries.
Resources typically are demarcated according to agency
responsibilities, county lines, grazing allotments, and other
administrative boundaries. Because natural and sociocultural
resources are not usually so aligned, each political entity
actually manages only a piece of the affected resource or
ecosystem. Cumulative effects on natural systems must use
natural ecological boundaries and analysis of human communities
must use actual sociocultural boundaries to ensure including
all effects.
1-11
-------
Table 1.3 (continued):
6. Cumulative effects may result from the accumulation of similar
effect* or the synergistic interaction of different effects.
Repeated actions may cause effects to build up through simple
addition (more and more of the same type of effect), and the
same or different actions may produce effects that interact to
produce cumulative effects greater than the sum of the effects.
7. Cumulative effects may last for many years beyond the life of
the action that caused the effects.
Some actions cause damage lasting far longer than the life of
the action itself( e.g., acid mine drainage, radioactive waste
contamination, species extinctions). Cumulative effects
analysis needs to apply the best science and forecasting
techniques to assess potential catastrophic consequences in the
future.
8. Each affected resource, ecosystem, and human community must be
analyzed in terms of its capacity to accommodate additional
effects, based on its ovn time and space parameters.
Analysts tend to think in terms of how the resource, ecosystem,
and human community will be modified given the action's
development needs. The most effective cumulative effects
analysis focuses on what is needed to ensure long-term
productivity or attainability of the resource.
1-12
-------
SELECTED REFERENCES
Barrow, C.J., Environmental and Social Impact Assessment. Arnold
Publishers, London, England, 1997, pp. 111-113, 156-158, 249-2SC, 296, and
298-299.
Burris, R.K., "Cumulative Impact Assessment in the Environmental Impact
Assessment Process," MSCE Thesis, 1994, University of Oklahoma, Norman,
Oklahoma.
Burris, R.K., and Canter, L.W., "A Practitioner Survey of Cumulative
Impact Assessment," Impact Assessment. Vol. 15, No. 2, June, I997b, pp.
181-194.
Canadian Environmental Assessment Research Council, "The Assessment of
Cumulative Effects: A Research Prospectus," 1988, Hull, Quebec, Canada.
Canter, L.W., and Clark, E.R., "NEPA Effectiveness — A Survey of
Academics," El A Review. Vol. 17, No. 5, September, 1997, pp. 313-327
(feature article).
Cooper, T.A., "Cumulative Impact Assessment Practice in the United
States," MES Thesis, 1995, University of Oklahoma, Norman, Oklahoma, pp.
136-168.
Council on Environmental Quality, "Considering Cumulative Effects Under
the National Environmental Policy Act," January, 1997a, Executive Office
of the President, Washington, D.C., pp. ix-x, 28-29, and 49-57.
2t;i-39s'-5"?-s-
-------
Duinker, P.M., "Cumulative Effects Assessment: What's the Big Deal?," Ch.
2, Cumulative Effects Assessment in Canada; From Concept to Practice.
Kennedy, A.J., editor, Alberta Association of Professional Biologists,
Edmonton, Alberta, Canada, 1994,-pp. 11-24.
Gilpin, A., Environmental Impact Assessment fEIAl; Cutting Edge for the
Twenty-First Century. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, England,
1995, pp. 31 and 169.
Kennedy, A.J., editor, Cumulative Effects Assessment in Canada; From
Concent to Practice. Alberta Association of Professional Biologists,
Edmonton, Alberta, Canada, 1994.
Kreske, D.L., Environmental Impact Statements — A Practical Guide for
Agencies. Citizens, and Consultants. John Wiley and Sons, Inc., New York,
New York, 1996, pp. 7, 166-168, and 332-342.
Lawrence, D.P., "Cumulative Impacts and EIA: Project Level
Considerations," EIA Newsletter 14. University of Manchester, Manchester,
England, August, 1997.
Peterson, E.B., Chan, Y.H., Peterson, N.M., Constable, 6.A., Caton, R.B.,
Davis, C.S., Wallace, R.R., and Yarranton, G.A., "Cumulative Effects
Assessment in Canada: An Agenda for Action and Research," 1987, Minister
of Supply and Services Canada, Hull, Quebec, Canada, pp. ix-x, 5-9, and
47-56.
Rees, W.E., "Cumulative Environmental Assessment and Global Change," EIA
Review. Vol. 15, No. 4, 1995, pp. 295-309.
Sadar, H., "Cumulative Impacts and EIA: The Development of a Practical
Framework," EIA Newsletter 14. University of Manchester, Manchester,
England, August, 1997.
Sadler, B., "Environmental Assessment in a Changing World: Evaluating
Practice to Improve Performance," Final Report of the International Study
of the Effectiveness of Environmental Assessment, June, 1996, Minister of
Supply and Services, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada, pp. i, 161-163, and 223-225.
Sonntag, N.C., Everitt, R.R., Rattie, L.P., Colnett, D.L., Wolf, C.P.,
Truett, J.C., Dorcey, A.H., and Boiling, C.S., "Cumulative Effects
Assessment: A Context for Further Research and Development," 1987,
Minister of Supply and Services Canada, Hull, Quebec, Canada, pp. ix-x, 7-
10, and 15-20.
Spaling, H., "Cumulative Impacts and EIA: Concepts and Approaches," EIA
Newsletter 14. University of Manchester, Manchester, England, August,
1997.
Spaling, H., and Smit, B., "Cumulative Environmental Change: Conceptual
Frameworks, Evaluation Approaches, and Institutional Perspectives,"
Environmental Management. Vol. 17, No.5, 1993, pp. 587-600.
Vestal, B., Rieser, A., Ludwig, M., Kurland, J., Collins, C., and Ortiz,
J., "Methodologies and Mechanisms for Management of Cumulative Coastal
Environmental Impacts ~ Part I: Synthesis, with Annotated Bibliography,
and Part II: Development and Application of a Cumulative Impacts
Assessment Protocol," NOAA Coastal Ocean Program Decision Analysis Series
No. 6, September, 1995, Coastal Ocean Office, National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, Silver Spring,
Maryland, pp. xxi-xxvii and 125-135 in Part I, and pp. 1-10 and 31-35 in
Part II.
1-14
-------
Williamson, S.C., "Cumulative Impacts Assessment and Management Planning:
Lessons Learned to Date," Environmental Analysis —- The NEPft Experience.
Hildebrand, S.G., and Cannon, J.B., editors, Lewis Publishers, Inc., BOCA
Raton, Florida, 1993, pp. 391-407.
Williamson, S.C., and Hamilton, X., "Annotated Bibliography of Ecological
Cumulative Impacts Assessment," Biological Report 89(11), 1989, U.S. FiBh
and Wildlife Service, National Ecology Research Center, Fort Collins*
Colorado.
1-15
-------
CHAPTER 2
PROCEDURES FOR CEA
This chapter is focused on several examples of pragmatic steps which
can be used to plan and conduct a cumulative effects study as part of a
project-level environmental impact assessment (EIA) or a strategic
environmental assessment (SEA). The specific steps must be seen within a
conceptual framework or planning context.
Conceptual frameworks for CEA typically include three components
(Spaling and Smit, 1993): (1) a cause or source of change (or
perturbations); (2) the process of change as reflected via the pertinent
system structure and processes; and (3) the result of the change (or
effect). Perturbations refer to naturally occurring events, or human-
induced actions, over time and space which contribute to cumulative
environmental change. System structure and processes include the
receiving ecological, economic, and/or social systems affected by the
perturbations, and the temporal and spatial processes influencing system
response or recovery. Finally, effects denote the change in a system's
structure and functioning over time and space.
Stakhiv (1988) suggested that the CEA paradigm within a regional
planning context includes seven key components: (1) setting planning goals
and objectives for future growth and management of the region; (2)
developing a scientifically supportable analytical framework for assessing
the cumulative effects of various growth and development scenarios; (3)
setting goals for wetland or other natural resources conservation in
relation to ecosystem needs; (4) forecasting anticipated growth to assess
the resultant demand for services and resources; (5) developing rational
analytical bounds for the ecological and social carrying capacity of an
area; (6) assessing cumulative effects on a particular set of
environmental resources, such as wetlands, with the effects being due to
the sum of perturbations resulting from different actions; and (7)
developing a framework for forecasting specific actions that characterize
different growth and development scenarios.
STEP-WISE PROCEDURES
Several step-wise procedures have been developed for CEA; for
example, Payees, (3J92) identified the following pragmatic steps for
conducting a CEA:
(1) Define the boundaries of project related effects.
i
(2) Identify pathways through which the anticipated environmental
effects of a project are expected to occur.
(3) Identify relevant past and existing projects and activities,
their impacts on the environment of the proposed project(s),
and the pathways through which those impacts occur.
(4) Identify future projects and activities and their potential
linkages via impact pathways to the proposed project(a).
(5) Identify VECs that exist within the zone of influence of the
proposed project(a).
2-1
-------
(6) Through linked pathways, assess the possible interactions
among environmental effects of the proposed project(s) and the
environmental effects of past, present and future projects and
activities.
(7) Determine the likelihood and significance of cumulative
effects of the proposed project(s) on the VECs.
(8) Identify appropriate mitigation and monitoring measures.
-Four pragmatic steps have been identified for delineating potential**
sources of the cumulative effects of a proposed project; they include
(Klein and Kingsley, 1994): (1) identify and describe all relevant
aspects of the project; (2) identify all other land uses or projects,
existing and pending, that may relate to the project under review; (3)
identify the relevant environmental systems or components that might be
effected by the project; and (4) identify any other interactions which may
be important. Selection criteria related to Step (2) include (Klein and
Kingsley, 1994): (a) likelihood of the project occurring (formal approval
can be considered a good indicator of this, but not the only measure);
(b)temporal aspects, e.g., projects occurring sooner rather than later;
(c) zone of influence, e.g., the proximity of the projects geographically,
and the probability of both projects affecting the same environmental
system; (d) spin-off effects, e.g., the potential of the project to have
broad influence and lead to a wide range of effects or to lead to a number
of associated projects; and (e) occurrence of related effects, e.g., if
the effects of the other projects are similar to those of the project
under review.
Table 2.1 displays 11 steps organized in accordance with three
typical components of the EIA process (Council on Environmental Quality,
1997a). The 11 steps, while focused on CEA, are conceptually similar to
traditional steps used within the EIA process. Accomplishment of these
steps can be facilitated through the use of methodologies; such methods
are addressed in Chapters 5 and 6 herein.
The 8 principles listed in Table 1.3 are specifically related to the
CEA steps in Table 2.1 as follows: (1) principles 1 through 4 in Table 1.3
are related to Steps 1 through 4 in Table 2.1; (2) principles 5 and 8 in
Table 1.3 are related to Steps 5 through 7 in Table 2.1; and (3)
principles 6, 7, and 8 in Table 1.3 are related to Steps 8 through 11 in
Table 2.1. In addition, it should be recognized that the 11 steps in
Table 2.1 are not necessarily conducted in a linear fashion; in fact,
steps 4 and 1 probably need to be addressed conjunctively. Also,
iterations may be needed for the listed steps.
Further, and as shown in Table 2.2, the Cumulative Effects
Assessment Working Group (1997) in Canada recently delineated typical CEA
tasks within the context of the EZA process. These tasks are conceptually
similar to the CEA steps developed by the CEQ and displayed in Table 2.1.
EXAMPLES OF PROCEDURAL APPLICATIONS
Three examples of specific procedural applications of CEA will be
described. First, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, a natural resources
agency, has suggested that CEA should focus on process and long-term
environmental management rather than specific methods used in a one-time
study with no follow-on. The basic steps in their cause/effect process
are (Vestal, et al., 1995): (1) scoping — define the ecological situation
in specific terms of individual problem statements and select one strategy
2-2
-------
Table 2.1: Steps in CEA to be Addressed in Components of the EIA Proce
•'(Council on Environmental Quality, 1997a)
EIA Components
CEA Steps
Scoping,
1. Identify the significant cumulative efTecti iaauei
associated with the proposed action and define
the assessment foal*.
2. Establish the geographic scope for the analysis.
3. Establish the time frame for the analysis.
4. Identify other actions affecting the resources.
ecosystems, and human communities of concent.
Describing the Affected Environment
5. Characterize the resources, ecosystems, and
human communities identified in scoping in
terms of their response to changes and capacity
to withstand stresses. .
6. Characterize'the stresses affecting these
resources, ecosystems, and human communitWia
and their relation to regulatory thresholds.
7. Develop a' baseline condition for the resources.
ecosystems, and human communities.
Determining, the Environmental Conwjuenccs
9.
10.
11.
Identify the important cause-snd-effect
reIstionships^ between human activities and
resources, ecosystems, and human conunun
Determine the magnitude and significance of
cumulative effects.
Modify or add alternatives to avoid, mimmrM,
or mitigate significant cumulative effects.
Monitor the cumulative effects of the selected
alternative and adapt management.
2-3
-------
Table 2.2: CEA Tasks Within the EZA Process (Cumulative Effects
Assessment Working Group, 1997)
EIA Steps
1. Scoping
2. Analysis of
Effects
3. Identification
of Mitigation
4. Evaluation of
Significance
5. Follow-up
CEA Tasks
• Identify regional issues of concern
• Select appropriate regional VECs
• Identify spatial and temporal bounds
• Identify other actions that mav affect
the same VECs
• Complete the collection of regional
baseline data
• Assess effects of all selected actions
on VECs
• Recommend mitigation measures
• Evaluate the significance of residual
effects
• CorflparS results against thresholds or
land use objectives and trends
• Recommend regional-wide monitoring
2-4
-------
for each problem; (2) analysis — investigate and document the problems
and their causes in detail using the best available data and analytical
tools and then set several goals; (3) interpretation — develop and
document options, estimate changes using mathematical models, and develop
a plan; and (4) direction — implement and incrementally improve the
management plan and systematically evaluate, improve and update the
problem statements, data, analytical tools, and mathematical models.
Application of CEA within the EIA process used in the national park
system in Canada is shown in three nested scales in Figure 2.1: the
individual project scale (project-EIA), the park scale (park-level CEA),
and the regional scale (regional analysis) (Kalff, 1995). The nested
scales and their related steps are self-explanatory and can be used to
make the connection between regional analysis, park-level CEA, and
project-EIA, and to provide advice on what project, activities, and
policies should proceed, be mitigated/amended, postponed, or be stopped.
Project-EIA should be conducted as projects are proposed for a park, while
park-level CEA and regional analysis could be done less frequently; for
example, every five years (Kalff, 1995).
Finally, Southerland, et al. (1997) have described the following 10-
step process for addressing the cumulative effects of power generation and
transmission in the State of Maryland in the United States:
Step 1. Identify the significant . cumulative effects issues
(resource-stress linkages) associated with power
generation and transmission.
Step 2. Establish the geographic scope for the analysis.
Step 3. Establish the time frame for the analysis.
Step 4. Identify other (nonpower related) actions affecting the
resources or ecosystems of concern.
Step 5. Characterize the baseline condition of resources or
ecosystems of concern in terms of their capacity to
withstand stresses.
Step 6. Characterize the stresses affecting these resources or
ecosystems and their relation to regulatory thresholds
(where available).
Step 7. Identify the important cause-and-effect relationships
between human activities and resources or ecosystems.
Step 8. Determine the magnitude and significance of cumulative
effects.
Step 9. Develop appropriate mitigation and enhancement measures
for affected resources and ecosystems.
Step 10. Monitor and evaluate the cumulative effects of the
power-related actions.
CUMULATIVE AIR QUALITY EFFECTS
An 8-step method for addressing cumulative effects on one
environmental resource, has been proposed by Rumrill and Canter (1998).
The method is a result of research consisting of: (1) a review of recent
environmental impact statements (EISs) and environmental assessments (EAs)
2-5
-------
A. ••tabllah Park coali
and Identify VBCa
B. Regional Analysis
1 I define regional boundaries
, .
describe regional •oology I
describe and nap regional
land ua«
Identify and map economic growth
pattern* in region and ikatch
likely economic and land uae
acenarloe
identify ecological probleme
which are affecting, or
•ay affect, park VECa
monitor change* in human
activities and land uee
C. Park-level CBA
1 deecrlbe park ecology
2 aaaeea current atatua of VECe
establish apeclfic goal* for
each VEC
describe past, present, and
likely future development*
I
S establlah cause-effect linkages
assess significance of cumulatlv*
effect* on VECa
undertake cumulative effect*
monitoring
1
2
a
4
S
6
D. Project-KM
deacribe project and
receiving environment
1
aetablieh project boundaries
1
identify environmental effect*
of proposed development and
the VBCe likely to be affected
1
analyze cumulative effects
1
assess significance
cumulative effect*
1
of
enaure that information
1* fed into park assessment
rigure 2.It CEA Stepa for Canadian National Parka (Kalff, 1995)
-------
to identify and evaluate the techniques used to assess cumulative and air
quality impacts (focused on a review of 27 EISs and EAs completed by the
United States Air Force); (2) a review and analysis of approximately forty
(40) federal and state court cases heard in the United States where
rulings were made relevant to the legal interpretation of what actions are
defined as reasonably foreseeable future actions (RFPAs); (3) a review of
air quality impact quantification methods and selection of methods that
are best suited to CEA; (4) the development of a conceptual approach for
significance determination for cumulative air quality effects and
associated opportunities for mitigation; and (5) method testing to
demonstrate how the environmental planner can use the method to assess
effects with varying degrees of accuracy and levels of detail depending on
information availability and concern about air quality in the study area.
The details relative to this research can be found in Rumrill (1998).
Table 2.3 presents the eight steps in the cumulative air quality
effects assessment (CAQEA) method. The CEA process can be accomplished.
either as an integral part of the environmental impact assessment (EIA)
process applied to a specific project; or, it can be accomplished as a
separate study for a general area and timeframe and incorporated by
reference and extracts into individual project assessments. The steps of
the CAQEA method begin with the selection of a definition of cumulative
effects to apply throughout the analysis. There are several definitions
available as described in Chapter 1, and while each may be valid, the
uniform employment of a single definition reduces the likelihood of
inconsistencies in a specific CEA study.
Step 2, the determination of spatial and temporal boundaries, must
include consideration of practical limitations such as time, funding,
political influence, and the predictive capabilities of the models
employed. A reasonable beginning to boundary selection is the spatial and
temporal range of the predicted effects of the proposal originating the
requirement of CEA. In this case, the boundaries could be based on the
anticipated dispersion area for the emitted pollutants over a time period
where those effects could be reasonably monitored or modeled. These
boundaries can then be adjusted based on the additional, reasonably
foreseeable, or connected, actions that are addressed with the original
proposal as well as other factors related to information availability and
the increasing uncertainty of predictions associated with considerations
further into the future.
In Step 3, the future activities to evaluate are selected. The
selection of the activities to evaluate firmly defines the context and
extent, and thus influences the contextual significance, of the analysis.
Accordingly, a procedure is included in Chapter 3 herein specifically for
the delineation of appropriate future activities to include in a CEA.
Step 4, the determination of background ambient pollutant
concentrations and related regulatory standards, establishes the baseline
conditions against which the subsequent CEs are to be evaluated. This
information should be obtained for each pollutant addressed in the
evaluation.
The fifth step requires the development of an air emission
inventory, relative to the pollutants of concern, for the identified
activities within the temporal and spatial boundaries. This information
can be obtained from such sources as emission inventory reports and state
emission summary reports, and/or developed independently from available
emission estimating procedures.
In Step 6, the assessor must -determine the quantitative and
qualitative change to the air quality resulting from the cumulative
2-7
-------
Table 2.3: Steps in the CAQEA Method (Rumrill and Canter, 1998)
Step
Comments
1. select aeri.nj.tion or CE to be
applied to the analysis.
CEQ definition is
recommended.
2. Determine spatial and temporal
boundaries.
3. Determine past, present, and
reasonably foreseeable future
actions (RFFAs) to be included in
the analysis.
Consider physical airshed
and political regions
(spatial) and forecasting
capability limitations
(temporal).
See section of Chapter 3
addressing RFFAs.
4. Determine background ambient air
pollutant concentrations and obtain
applicable standards.
Regional air quality
monitoring station data is
recommended. Standards can
include ambient air quality
standards and emission
standards.
5. Develop quantitative and
qualitative emission data estimates
for the actions determined in Step
Develop an emission
inventory for the project
and other actions in the
spatial and temporal
boundaries.
o. Determine quantitative and
qualitative change to background
air quality (determined in Step 4)
resulting from evaluated actions.
7. Evaluate the CE significance in
context with the air quality
impacts of the action originally
generating the NEPA requirement and
incorporate that significance into
the assessment.
Emissions inventories and
quantitative air quality
modeling can be useful. See
section of Chapter 9
summarizing three types of
models.
Necessary to properly
determine impact
significance. See section
of this paper which
describes a scoring method
for CE significance
determination.
o. include mitigation opportunities
for CEs when discussing specific
action impact mitigation.
Additional mitigation
opportunities/options are
available when other
activities are considered.
See section of Chapter 9
that highlights these
opportunities.
2-8
-------
influence of the evaluated activities. This can be done either through
*ur"Ctu C°mpariaon Of the Pre-exi8t«»9 and resultant emission levels or
through modeling techniques used to approximate changes to ambient
concentrations. Regardless of which method is used, the assessor should
include a discussion of the uncertainty in each of the predictive methods
employed so as not to lend undue weight to the value of the forecasted
results.
The seventh step is the determination of the cumulative significance
resulting from the evaluated future proposal(s) within the context of the
spatial and temporal timeframe of the analysis and the associated
activities. Effects intensity ratings and a scoring matrix for combining
various legal, political, and health considerations associated with
effects significance are included herein. This provides the basis for a
standardized significance determination system with results that can be
incorporated into multiple future environmental analysis studies.
Determination of cumulative effects significance differs from that
of project-level impact significance. In a CEA, multiple activities must
be considered. The timing and location of these proposals can influence
the spatial and temporal boundaries considered, and the resultant
significance determinations. Whereas a project-level assessment considers
the environmental consequences of a single action on its local
surroundings, a CEA needs to address the long-term significance of the
original proposal and other proposals connected either by proponent agency
planning, geographic proximity, or affected resource. A CEA addresses not
only the ability of the environment to assimilate the impacts of the
original proposal, but also its influence on development attainability.
Since there was no available method for addressing the significance
of cumulative air quality effects, relevant air quality issues were
considered, along with the assistance of a group of eight environmental
professionals with experience in air quality and CEA issues, in the
development of a list of factors for application to a systematic
significance determination procedure. The result is a list of 18 factors
(see Table 2.4) determined to be appropriate for consideration in air
quality cumulative effect significance determinations (Rumrill, 1998).
The factors were categorized into six functional groups; however, some
issues overlap multiple categories. For example, the combination of
sulfur dioxide and suspended particulate matter can result in a
synergistic adverse health effect. Therefore, it could theoretically fall
under two categories: secondary/indirect/synergistic effects, and health
effects. Professional judgment must dictate where it is applied for each
assessment.
As indicated in Table 2.4, only 6 of the 18 factors determined to be
of relevance in a cumulative assessment of air quality are typically
addressed in project-level assessments. Project specific assessments will
typically address the change in emission level, but only based on the
contribution of a single proposal. Comparison to permit rules or
limitations is also common; however, the study area trends toward
compliance may not be addressed. Under the ambient concentration
category, it is common to find discussions relating the proposal
contributions to ambient levels and comparisons to standards. Also,
project-level impact studies usually include public concern relative to
air quality issues. The remaining issues presented as being important to
a cumulative analysis are unique to the holistic evaluation goals of a
human community, regional, or larger level analysis.
Once the factors in Table 2.4 have been reviewed as to their
relevance for a specific CEA study, the. next step is to actually apply
them to the available air quality cumulative effects data. Importance
2-9
-------
Table 2.4: Significance Determination Factors in the CAQEA Method
Pollutant Emissions
. % change in total area emission level of a pollutant
. tuning, duration, and rate of emission level change*
• comparison of emission nute to emission permit cr rate
Ambient Air Quality Standards
nhieM iui lt tlP*
. timing^ duration, ?"^ rate of ambient concentiation change*
. violation of standards* (federal, state, local)
. influence on air pollution episodes
- «"flnM«y on current area classification {flttymnfflfftfaf>tl*ia**a'TCTriCTt. ma int ^nann* area,
prevention of significant deterioration (PSD) area)
Public Perception
- level of concern expressed by public over air quality issues*
on photochemical pollution level (PPL) potential
- influence on VOC/NO, ratio
on stratospheric ozone
- inflame? QQ global wanning
. spatial (transboundary) transport of pollutants (national, global)
• influence on SO] & NO, contribution to acid deposition potential
Human Health
- level of carcinogenic effect
• level of non-carcinogenic effect
Mitigatic
. timing/focus of mitigation efforts vs. timing/focus of effects
•Similar to factors typically addressed in project-level ETA.
Note: Sensitive ncepton are not listed as a category for inclusion; however, they are addressed. A regional
tare! analysis will typically always have some mix of sensitive recepton (e.g. children, hospital
patients, dderiy, specific crops, terrestrial vegetation, valued structures or mnmimmt*. etc) that could
be «in tfie HtmnAmiitm* of smbieot
air quality standards and secoodaiy/indiiect/sYnerpstic eflects.
2-10
-------
weight* should be assigned to each of the significance factors
corresponding to the expert opinion-derived level of importance. Table
2.5 present* a scoring matrix with the recommended importance weights.
The factors are assigned high, medium, and low importance scores usable
for generic application at a local or regional scale; however, f°r
specific applications (e.g., global analysis) the user can make
alterations in the listed importance weightings.
Air quality effects resulting from the combination of all activities
in the study area should then be rated as to the intensity of their
influence on each factor. Note that some factors may need to be rated for
individual pollutants or spatial boundary conditions (e.g., local,
regional, national, etc.) to complete the analysis. Recommendations
corresponding to three levels of impact intensity for the 18 factors are
presented in Table 2.6. Next, the intensity rating for each factor is
multiplied by the assigned importance weight. The results are placed in
the "Weighted Effect" column in Table 2.5. Once all "weighted effects"
are determined, they are added to yield a single score. The possible
range of scores for a single pollutant is from 0 to 108. Based on this
range, the significance of the corresponding cumulative air quality effect
can be ascertained. The available range of values could be divided into
the following groupings:
0-35 (low significance or nonsignificant)
36 - 72 (moderate significance)
73 - 108 (high significance)
Assessments resulting in low "weighted effect" scores (0 to 35) can
easily be termed as nonsignificant. Where a score is determined to be in
the high range (73 to 108), the assessment should clearly state that a
significant adverse effect is predicted. However, where assessments
result in moderate range scores (36 to 72), professional judgment must be
used in applying specific labels. Combined consideration of the
cumulative effect with the direct effects related to the proposal
originally generating the requirement for the NEPA process may sway the
decision. Additionally, the level of uncertainty in the predictive
techniques should be considered in determining the score's interpretation.
Beneficial effects are rated in the scoring matrix in combination
with the "no effect* condition to eliminate the potential for a beneficial
effect to mathematically "cancel" an adverse effect (Table 2.S).
Beneficial effects should, however, be considered as a complementary
issue. Also, severely adverse effects may be muted by the limitations of
the scoring system. To ensure that the contributions of beneficial and
severely adverse effects are not masked by the analysis matrix, a short
discussion of these effects should be included along with the composite
quantitative rating. Zf several composite ratings are developed due to
multiple boundary conditions, or several pollutant analyses, each should
be presented and discussed.
Scientific uncertainty is associated with multiple activities in the
CEA process. When assessing air quality effects, uncertainty can be found
in the estimation techniques used to determine source emission strength,
and models for predicting dispersion characteristics and ambient
concentrations. Potential error related to source emission estimates
stems from the prediction of the actual future activity. For example,
fugitive dust estimations are based on soil water content, construction
vehicle use rates, meteorological conditions, and acreage estimates.
Actual conditions can, and typically do, vary from the average data.
2-11
-------
Table 2.5: Scoring Matrix for Air Quality Cumulative Effect Significance Determination
I
fv>
Factor*
Pollutanl Emtoioni
H change in emiukn level
liming, duration, and rale of change
conparteoo. to endoion liiroutioni (H ooacomplianoe)
Ambient AirQuilitv Slandtfd*
change in anibienl ooncentnlio*
liming, duration, and rate oTchange
violation of aUndardi
inftiMnee on air aoUutioncpiaode*
influenoe on current ana duaiOcalion
Public PtroeulioB
level of public <
Secntdirv/Indirect/Svnerciilic Effect*
influence on fPL potential
influence on VOC/NQ, nlio
influence on itmocpheric coon*
induenM on global warming
tpelial (Iramboundiry} trenipart
inQuence on acid depotilkm potential
Hunun Hetllh
kvel of carcinogenic effect
level of ooexvanofeoic effect
MJIJMlion
liimnf/fbcui of nitigaiiaa w liamtftocut ofeffwu
High unpartnoe • 3
Medium importance • 2
U»w importance -1
CtanmUllve Effect talcuMy (b)
Luge Advene-3
Modenle Advene-2
Snull Advene -1
No Advene Effect or Beneficial Effect - 0
We%Me4 Effect (ub)
Total-
Note: Thi» nvrtrix AonM be •pplied relative to each qwtial boundary condition and pollutant addreued in the tnalyiu.
-------
Table 2.6: Impact Intensity Rating Recommendations
Factor
Cumulative Trnpflcr iiiign«iiy
atrvd
10%er eait
S-9Hin
p«iod,> 5 ywi duration,
<*
lOHer
5-9%
1-3HJH
oeoHn In* B mdy
viabnea
. rafiucna an «ir pollutiaa tpaaim
Imlafi
nqumdlmlef
lam&fubn
DHMIBflRi
• tevriof public cenoan
MAlevdef
• mflucoaoaPPLpaiaxul
10% or
S-9%«
<3*m
oaVOONOi ratio
10% or
i to
5-9% i
<3%i
lODC
•mUBOOMiBODC
ODCcaoM
Un.i
bf«i
Human HttMl
imirfc
UAAC(a
H.V/1000)
iMUAAC
(arTLVnOOO)
TLVnMO)
cflbet
ODC«OzcaeDepktin(
MAAC-U*
•WB.TL.V-T
2-13
-------
Inherent assumptions in the dispersion models introduce error as can
mistakes in input data. Model validation or calibration techniques can be
employed to minimize this source of uncertainty. Therefore, the
recommended format for handling uncertainty in the CAQEA method is the
preparation of an uncertainty report (the report can be included as an
appendix in the impact study document). Once the uncertainties from all
predictive techniques are combined, relative uncertainties can be
determined and decisions regarding additional studies or activity
modifications can then be made.
Finally, Step 8 in Table 2.3 addresses opportunities for cumulative
effects mitigation. The intent pf this step is to expand mitigation
options beyond consideration of only the original proposal to encompass
multiple future activities. This approach promotes improved cost
effectiveness in the expenditure of limited mitigation resources.
SUMMARY COMPARISONS OF EIA AND CEA
The EIA process has typically focused on a project (the proposed
action) and its resultant consequences (effects or impacts) on components
of the biophysical and socio-economic environments. One useful
perspective in CEA is to focus on affected environmental components or
VECs and the "contributions" of multiple projects toward their resultant
stress or effects. This perspective has been suggested by the examples of
step-wise procedures included in this chapter. Figure 2.2 depicts these
comparisons. Further, Table 2.7 displays comparative information on a
single project-focused EIA and CEA arrayed against a series of eight
topics. These comparisons represent a useful summary of how CEA can be
incorporated within the EIA process.
SELECTED REFERENCES
Council on Environmental Quality, "Considering Cumulative Effects Under
the National Environmental Policy Act," January, 1997a, Executive Office
of the President, Washington, D.C., pp. ix-x, 28-29, and 49-57.
Cumulative Effects Assessment Working Group, "Cumulative Effects
Assessment Practitioners Guide," December, 1997, draft copy, Canadian
Environmental Assessment Agency, Hull, Quebec, Canada, pp. 3, 9, 13, 16,
26, 43, 61, 64, C-l, and C-2.
Davies, K., "Addressing Cumulative Effects Under the Canadian
Environmental Assessment Act: A Reference Guide," 1992, Canadian
Environmental Assessment Agency, Hull, Quebec, Canada.
Kalff, S.A., "A Proposed Framework to Assess Cumulative Environmental
Effects in Canadian National Parka," Technical Report in Ecosystem Science
No. 1, 1995, Parks Canada, Atlantic Regional Office, Halifax, Nova Scotia,
pp. 14-15, 23, and 36-38.
Klein, H., and Kings ley, L., "Workshop on Cumulative Environmental Effects
at the Project Level — November 2, 1994," Ontario Association for Impact
Assessment Newsletter, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada, pp. 1-4.
Lawrence, D.P., "Cumulative Effects Assessment at the Project Level,"
Impact Assessment. Vol. 12, No. 3, Fall, 1994, pp. 253-273.
Rumrill, J.N., "Air Quality Cumulative Effects Assessment for U.S. Air
Force Bases," PhD Dissertation, 1998, University of Oklahoma, Norman,
Oklahoma.
2-14
-------
Component
.
Component
Proposed Project
Component
EIA
Proposed Project Past Projects
T f
Component
Current Projects Future Projects
CEA
Notes:
Component refers to various biophysical or socio-economic components
of the environment; proposed project refers to the proposed action.
Figure 2.2: Comparison* of Focus of EIA Process Versus Focus of CEA within the
EIA process (after Kalff, 199S)
2-15
-------
Rumrill, J.N., and Canter, L.H., "Cumulative Air Quality Effects
Assessment," draft paper, 1998, University of Oklahoma, Norman, Oklahoma.
Southerland, M.T., Roth, N.E., Shaw, S.K., and Klauda, R.J., "Establishing
A Cumulative Effects Baseline for Watershed Impact Assessment and
Restoration," The Environmental Professional, Vol. 19, 1997, pp. 98-108.
Spaling, H., and Smit, B., "Cumulative Environmental Change: Conceptual
Frameworks, Evaluation Approaches, and Institutional Perspectives,"
Environmental Management. Vol. 17, No. 5, 1993, pp. 587-600.
Stakhiv, E.Z., "An Evaluation Paradigm for Cumulative Impact Analysis,"
Environmental Management. Vol. 12, No. 5, 1988, pp. 725-748.
Vestal, B., Rieser, A., Ludwig, M., Kurland, J., Collins, C., and Ortiz,
J., "Methodologies and Mechanisms for Management of Cumulative Coastal
Environmental Impacts — Part X: Synthesis, with Annotated Bibliography,
and Part II: Development and Application of a Cumulative Impacts
Assessment Protocol," NOAA Coastal Ocean Program Decision Analysis Series
No. 6, September, 1995, Coastal Ocean Office, National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, Silver Spring,
Maryland, pp. xxi-xxvii and 125-135 in Part I, and pp. 1-10 and 31-35 in
Part II.
2-17
-------
CHAPTER 3
SPECIAL ISSUES IN CEA
Planning a CEA study involves delineating appropriate spatial and
temporal boundaries, identifying "reasonably foreseeable future actions"
in the environs of the proposed action; establishing baseline conditions
for affected resources, ecosystems, and human communities; and determining
the significance of predicted cumulative effects. These special CEA
issues are addressed in this chapter.
DELINEATING SPATIAL BOUNDARIES
Appropriate spatial and temporal boundaries in a CEA should be baaed
on both "activity information" and "environmental information" (Irwin and
Rodes, 1992). Activity information should involve consideration of the
types and rates of release, movement, and transformation of materials and
energy. Environmental information includes understanding ecological
processes, such as bioaccumulation, that control these rates. It may also
involve understanding the ranges of plants and animals. Cumulative
effects on the socio-economic environment can encompass information needs
related to human populations, economic and health indicators, and
infrastructure requirements. It should be recognized that different
spatial and temporal boundaries may well be appropriate for different
types of cumulative effects.
The following factors should be considered in delineating spatial
boundaries for a CEA conducted in conjunction with a proposed project
(after Drouin and LeBlanc, 1994): (1) the size and nature of the project
and its anticipated effects; (2) the availability of existing data and
knowledge about the project and its environmental effects; (3) the
feasibility of collecting new data and knowledge; (4) the size, nature,
and environmental effects of past, existing, and future projects and
activities in the area; (5) the characteristics and sensitivity of the
receiving environment (extent and degree of existing stress); (6) relevant
ecological boundaries, including watersheds, sub-watersheds, and major
landscape features; and (7) relevant jurisdictional boundaries. Some
"rules-of-thumb" related to establishing the spatial boundaries for a CEA
study are shown in Table 3.1 (Cumulative Effects Assessment Working Group,
1997).
Even though the spatial boundary considerations are straightforward,
there are some difficulties associated with defining such boundaries,
examples include (Burris and Canter, 1997b): (1) the lack of pertinent
information; (2) need for different boundaries for different
effects/resource areas; (3) drawing the line on where effects stop and who
settles disputes; (4) incomplete understanding of linkages that may expand
or confine the area; (5) lack of CEA study funds, time to conduct study,
and incomplete knowledge of the problem; and (6) determining a balance
between the environmental components, boundaries, and jurisdictions of
relevant controlling bodies.
DELINEATING TEMPORAL BOUNDARIES
Delineating the temporal boundaries for a CEA study involves
determining how far in the past to consider in establishing the historical
3-1
-------
Table 3.1: Rulea-of-Thumb for Consideration in Establishing Spatial
Boundaries (Cumulative Effects Assessment Working Group, 1997)
• Establish a local study area to separate out the pbvious, easily
understood and often mitigable effects.
• Establish a regional study area that includes possible interactions
with other actlops. Consider the interests of other stakeholders.
• Use of several boundaries (e.g., one for each environmental
component) is often preferable to one boundary.
• Boundaries should expand sufficiently to address the cause-effect
relationships between actions and VECs.
• Characterize the abundance and distribution of VECs at a local,
regional, or larger scale if necessary (e.g., for very rare
species), and ensure that the boundaries take this into account.
• Determine if geographic constraints may limit cumulative effects
within a relatively confined area near the action.
• Characterize the nature of pathways that describe the cause-effect
relationships to establish a "line-of-inquiry" (e.g., effluent from
a pulp mill to contaminants in a river to tainting of fish flesh and
finally to human consumption).
• Determine where these effects become insignificant (e.g., effect
within natural variability, below regulated thresholds); boundaries
should end upon reaching the point at which cumulative effects
become insignificant.
• Estimate the reversibility of the effects (i.e., time required for
recovery).
• Be prepared to adjust the boundaries during the assessment process
if new information suggests that this is warranted, and defend any
such changes.
3-2
-------
boundary, and how far in the future would be relevant in establishing the
time period encompassing reasonably foreseeable future actions. Figure
3.1 depicts a time line with the boundaries displayed. Unfortunately, no
precise guidelines have been established for determining how far to extend
the past or future. Specific temporal boundaries will be dependent on the
type of project, its location, and historical and planned actions in the
vicinity. Examples of pragmatic questions, issues and information to
consider in selecting temporal boundaries include:
(1) Does the project proponent have a written policy "regarding
temporal boundary delineations?
(2) In the absence of a written policy, what has been the practice
of the proponent in establishing temporal boundaries for other
projects?
(3) Does the proponent require an economic evaluation (e.g., a
cost-benefit analysis) of the project? If so, what time
period is required (e.g., 25 years into the future)?
(4) What historical monitoring data or information exists for
potentially affected resources, ecosystems, and human
communities? Can such data or information be used to select
indicators for present and future conditions? Could
information from historical aerial photography in the study
area be utilized to describe changes in land uses over time,
particularly with regard to the consequences of past actions?
(5) Do any regional development or general environmental
management (conservation) plans exist for or incorporate
portions of the study area? If historical planning documents
exist, have they been modified over time? What types of
planning documents exist for future actions or management
strategies? Do any specific resource or ecosystem management
plans exist for the study area?
(6) What rates of change have occurred in the past regarding
pertinent resources, ecosystems, and human communities? What
rates are currently being experienced, and what changes in the
rates, if any, are expected in the short (2 to 5 years) and
longer (5 to 25 years) time frames?
(7) Have governmental policies regarding growth and development
activities changed over time? Are policy changes or new
management strategies expected in the future, and what are the
implications of such changes and strategies?
(8) Are there any special considerations related to historical or
anticipated changes in environmental quality standards for the
potentially affected resources and/or ecosystems? What is the
successional stage of relevant ecosystems, and the expected
time periods for subsequent stages?
(9) What is the planned lifetime of the proposed action? For
example, if the extraction of non-renewable resources is
proposed, what is the time period for complete depletion? If
renewable resources are to be used, are there planned program!
for restoration (e.g., tree plantings in areas of timber
harvesting for wood products)? Will a proposed chemical
manufacturing plant be obsolete after x years due to changes
in manufacturing technologies? Will the capacity of a waste
3-3
-------
I
10
1 1 ' S
m « JJ
*• Lt 1
^ cu S
Time
Figure 3.1: Terminology for Delineation of Temporal Boundaries
3-4
-------
disposal site be used up after x years, and are there longer
term land reclamation efforts which will be implemented?
(10) If cumulative effects are associated with land use changes
and/or the emissions of air and/or water pollutants, are
historical data available on such changes/emissions for past
and present actions? Can information of this type be procured
for future years?
(11) Are there any unique characteristics of pollutant emissions
from the proposed action and/or past, present, and reasonably
foreseeable future actions that should be considered in
establishing the temporal boundaries? Examples include the
half-life of the environmental biodegradability of pollutants,
and long term transport concerns in the subsurface
environment.
To summarize, some options for consideration in establishing past
and future temporal boundaries for a CEA study are shown in Table 3.2
(Cumulative Effects Assessment Working Group, 1997). However,
difficulties can occur in delineating the temporal boundaries for a CEA
study; they include (Burris and Canter, 1997b): (1) defining where
"short-term" ends and "long-term" begins; (2) determining what constitutes
a reasonably foreseeable future action (a term used in the USA),
especially for nonfederal proponents; (3) correlating old and current data
for comparison (past data may be nonexistent, scarce, incomplete, or
inaccurate); (4) possible absence of fundamental scientific and historical
data; (5) determining a proper balance between the short-term interests
(10-20 years) of planning authorities and long-term sustainability
interests; (6) recognizing that appropriate spatial boundaries may shift
over time; (7) insufficient time and funding for the CEA; and (8)
uncertainty and lack of confidence in predictions.
Finally, even though many factors or issues related to defining the
historical boundary of a study can be identified, it should be noted that
the effects of past and present actions, irrespective of how far the
historical time period is extended, can be reflected in the careful
documentation of baseline environmental conditions (Kreske, 1996).
DETERMINING REASONABLY FORESEEABLE FUTURE ACTIONS
Adequate consideration of cumulative effects within the EIA process
in the United States must involve an analysis of the proposed action in
view of past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions (RFFAs).
One key difficulty in this analysis is the determination of what
activities should be considered as RFFAs. For over two decades, the
answer to the question — when does a contemplated action become
"reasonably foreseeable?" — has been argued in the United States courts.
In fact, at least 40 court cases have involved cumulative effects, and
many of them hinged on the determination of RFFAs. A number of
independent and overlapping issues regarding RFFAs were addressed in the
cases; for example, is there a need for formal proposals to delineate
RFFAs versus the existence of speculative actions in informal proposals.
Table 3.3 summarizes 15 such issues identified via a systematic review of
the court cases (Rumrill and Canter, 1997). It should be noted that
although the cases were from the United States, the general issues are
applicable within many EIA systems.
Based on the issues addressed in the reviewed cases, and with the
precondition that when the courts contradict, a conservative approach
3-5
-------
Table 3.2: Considerations in Establishing the Temporal Boundaries for a
CEA Study (Cumulative "Effects Assessment Working Group, 1997)
Options for establishing the past boundary
Each of the following options progress further back in time:
• when impacts associated with the proposed project first occur;
• existing conditions;
• the time at which a certain land use designation was made (e.g.,
lease of crown land for the project, establishment of a park);
• the point in time at which effects similar to those of concern first
occurred; or
• a past point in time representative of pre-disturbance conditions
(i.e., the "historical baseline"), especially if the assessment
includes determining to what degree later actions have affected the
environment.
Options for establishing the future boundary
Each of the following points occur further ahead in time. Each later one
better reflects the true effects of the project; however, assessment
becomes more difficult to quantify if the time periods are very long
(e.g., >30-50 years).
• end of operational life of project;
• after project abandonment and reclamation; or
• after recovery of VECs to pre-disturbance conditions (this should
also consider the variability of natural cycles of change in
ecosystems).
3-6
-------
Table 3.3: Legal Issue Linkages to 8-Activity Method for
Determining RFFAs (Rumrill and Canter, 1997)
Issue Addressed
Activity
Affected
Commenu
Only formal proposals arc required to be considered as RFFAs
Informal propouls beyond speculation ire to be considered as RFFAs
Remote or speculative informal proposals are not required to be
considered as RFFAs
Speculative effects are not required to be included after scoping process
determines significant/speculative issues
Future actions that (1) are a direct consequence of the current action and
(2) where consideration could alter the nature of the project or its effects
•re to be considered as RFFAs
Reasonable amount of forecasting is required
Future actions directly tied to an overall goal are RFFAs
Lack of independent utility or demonstration as a logical pan in a chain
requires related actions to be evaluated together
Actions having independent utility are not required to be evaluated
together
Geographic connections require actions to be evaluated together
Geographic connections do not to require actions to be evaluated together
Other future actions within an agency undergoing the same level of
review must be evaluated with the proposal
Common natural resource threat or commitment or environmental effect
connections require actions to be evaluated together
Planning document related actions supporting defined goals are
connected and are to be considered as RFFAs
Plans that manage actions but do not promote their occurrence through
Ihe association of • goal are not required to be considered as connected
or RFFAs
2
3
3,7
3,4,7
3
6
4
N/A
U
N/A
Does not support
conservative
approach
Does not support
conservative
approach
Note: Activity 8 was not developed from court case review, however,
proper documentation is central to the EIA and CEA processes. The
identified steps are in Figure 3.2.
3-7
-------
dictate* that an action should be included, evaluation of future
activities with respect to the following eight activities should minimize
court challenges and public opposition on the basis of failure to include
future actions in a CEA (the eight activities are displayed in Figure
3.2):
Activity 1: Determine reasonable temporal and spatial boundaries
with respect to the availability of information, the
realm of influence or control exerted by the subject
agency, and the nature of the environmental impacts of
the original project.
Activity 2: Within those boundaries, if the agency has additional
formal proposals, approved or pending approval, relating
to the accomplishment of any agency goal or objective,
include them as RFFAs.
Activity 3: Conduct forecasting to determine possible, plausible,
'[conceivable, and probable future activities11 both
internal and external to the subject agency that fall
within the temporal and spatial boundaries established
in Activity 1.
'Activity 4: Evaluate the list from Activity 3 to determine possible
connectedness to the original proposal. Consider: (a)
geographic relationships; (b) common resources or
environmental media impacted; and (c) causal links or
catalytic effects, between the original and forecasted
activities. If connections can be determined, consider
those activities as RFFAs.
Activity 5: Again evaluating the list of proposals from Activity 3,
determine if "significant amounts" of effort, resources,
time, and/or money have been invested into the future
activities. If so, consider the activities as RFFAs.
Activity 6: Within the area of concern, determine the existence of
any planning documents, such as city or regional
development plans, historic preservation plans, district
plans, or environmental use plans, that relate future
activities and the original proposal through a common
goal or objective. If such relationships can be
determined, consider the related future activities as
RFFAs.
Activity 7: Evaluate the significance of each activity thus far
categorized as reasonably foreseeable. Include
consideration of: (a) whether or not obtaining useful
information, or relevant prediction models, related to
the environmental impacts of the activity is possible at
this point in time; and (b) whether or not the
information obtained will have any impact on the
original project alternative evaluation and selection.
If RFFAs are determined to be "insignificant" or
impossible to evaluate at this time, exclude them from
the list. The remaining RFFAs should be included in the
CEA for the original project.
Activity 8: Document the evaluation of RFFAs and include that
documentation in the final impact study report.
3-8
-------
Detennine Spatial and Temporal
Boundaries for the CEA
RFFA
RFFA
RITA
RFFA
Activity 7
Evaluate Significance
Include RFFA in CEA
J«
VTitiijn fiocDdfiies?
no-^ Exrinde from Analysis
Activity 3
FomreActtritiowiflB
Activity 4
EvBJnteCamectedii
• Canoected?
DO
Activity 5
ine if Significant]
Activity 6
Detennine Planning Docoment Relationship*
witfamBooadaha
^ Rdationsnips Exist?
tirity from analysis
Activit 8
tJ
Figure 3.2: Decision Flowchart for Determining RFFAa
(Rumrill and Canter/ 1997)
3-9
-------
Following these eight activities through the decision process
illustrated in Figure 3.2 will ensure that most, if not all, relevant
projects are included. It will demonstrate to the decision makers,
regulators, and if necessary, the courts, that a concerted effort was made
to comply with the spirit of the legislation and provide the pertinent
information needed to make responsible decisions with respect to the
protection of the environment.
While the basis for the recommended eight-activity Conservative
Determination Method is a review of relevant issues from U.S. court cases,
it is not intended that its application be restricted to the United
States. The spirit and intent of NEPA is similar to that of environmental
provisions of other nations in that all intend to provide decision makers
with more complete and relevant information as to the environmental
impacts of their actions. Several nations have recognized the importance
of the assessment of cumulative effects. Careful consideration of the
issues presented in this analysis will further refine the scoping process
in CEA regardless of the regulatory framework in which the assessor
operates.
Once future projects are identified based on the eight activities,
the pragmatic issue turns to how they should be addressed in a CEA. One
suggestion is that a typical "impact footprint" for each future project
may be used in addressing the cumulative effects of "reasonable
foreseeable future actions" (Kreske, 1996).
The output from identifying relevant past, present, and RFFAs in a
CEA should be summarized in a tabular format as well as a map. Table 3.4
illustrates such a display associated with addressing the cumulative
effects on resources, ecosystems, and human communities of concern for the
Castle Mountain Mining Project of the U.S. Bureau of Land Management (U.S.
Bureau of Land Management, 1990). Table 3.4 groups the activities by
category, status, cumulative effects issues, and spatial boundary
(location). Appropriate temporal boundaries are not displayed; however,
they could be easily added by dividing the proposed activities into time
periods. The summary approach shown in Table 3.4 is a useful way of
organizing information.
ESTABLISHING BASELINE CONDITIONS
Step 7 in the Council on Environmental Quality list of 11 steps
(shown in Table 2.1) for CEA requires that the "baseline condition" be
described for the potentially affected resources ecosystems, and human
communities (Council on Environmental Quality, 1997). Baseline in this
case does not mean "existing condition" nor is it the same as "describing
the affected environment." Baseline condition is perceived to denote the
condition of a resource, ecosystem, or human community prior to its
degradation by society's activities. Accordingly, it is primarily
associated with the characteristics of potentially affected resources and
ecosystems in their "pristine state."
From a conceptual standpoint, baseline conditions would be necessary
in establishing current degradation to resources and ecosystems from the
past actions of society. However, the fundamental dilemma in defining a
baseline condition is related to the availability of historical
information and trends data. Considerable debate on this issue is
currently on-going in the United States. From a pragmatic standpoint, it
may be necessary to identify current-day "pristine resources and
ecosystems" and extrapolate this information to the study area for a CEA.
3-10
-------
Table 3.4: Other Activities (existing and proposed) That May Cumulative
Affect Resources of Concern for the Castle Mountain Mining
Project (U.S. Bureau of Land Management, 1990)
Description/Responsible Agency
Uiftia>/S*rvicM
1 AT&T Communicetion cobl* upgrading (BLMN)
2 recBsllmkrowav* sites (BLMN)
3 Bio Gwipowsr plant (SBC)
4 AddMond utility fin«« (1-15 corridor) (BLMN)
5 Whisky P*rt«nrtrip/wot«riin« (BLMN)
6 Solid wast* landfill (UP Track* near state tin*) (BLMN)
7 Sj/n .», ,,,ntmr Mj-i*u4« flunnrwih 1 rtLml fRI AAM1
wostt waiijr ponai jivunpan LDHJ (Duvinj
ft Ki:»ijrui ...-iii* •;•* /fll AANI
o riiptoo wostw sifv (ouvinj
9 LA-Las Vtgas boll* train (BLMN)
Commercial and Retidenftit
1 0 Nipton land acnang* (BLMN)
11 Scatter^ rmdcntid unto (BLMN)
KBCTBOnOn
12 Ivanpah Lak* londsailing (BLMN)
13 Bontow to Vegas ORV roc* (BLMN)
U East Mojav* Hwitag* Trail UM (BLMN)
15 Mojav* Rood UM (BLMN)
.16 dork Country Rood A6BP «• (BLMS.CQ
Mining
17 PropOMdAction/AHwno1iv«-pnKiousnMlals(BLMN)
18 ColosMumMifM-pnKiousnMlab(BLMN)
in f* h j K--nr.ru -i nita nnnranoteB fBLAAMI
1 y uonrent ooirow pm « aggrvgai^ (»tmr»j
20 Morning Star Min* • prwaous nMtab (BLMN)
21 \fand««lt. prwownMld* mifl ste (BLMN)
22 GoldOTQuoUMJm*pnKiou Cumulative
4,1
4.1
2
4.4
^••^^•V^M^^^^MOV^Ml^M^^^^PBMM^BH^^^^HH^^^^^
4
4.12
A 0
4 9
4.9,10
4,6,12
»*
4A10
4A10
44,10
4.5.10
4^,10
3^A8,9
3,4^.8,9
A*
3.4,5.8,9
3X43.9
3X4A»
4,9
3.4^ 89
44,9
^
44
(HUM
-------
DETERMINING THE SIGNIFICANCE OF CUMULATIVE EFFECTS
Significance determinations for cumulative effects can be based on
criteria similar to those used fas- project-level impacts as well as unique
considerations associated with cumulative effects. Canter and Canty
(1993) suggested a sequenced approach for project-level impacts based upon
the review of significance definitions in the EIA laws, regulations,
and/or guidelines of numerous countries. The sequenced approach for
cumulative effects can be achieved by applying the following series of
questions in the order shown (after Canter and Canty, 1993):
(1) Does the proposed project, plan, program, and/or policy cause
cumulative effects that exceed the definition of significant
cumulative effects as contained in pertinent laws, regulations
or executive orders?
(2) Is the project, plan or program located in a protected habitat
or land-use zone, or within an exclusionary zone relative to
land usage? Is the environmental resource to be affected a
significant resource? Will cumulative effects be of concern
relative to the resource?
(3) Is the proposed project, plan, program and/or policy, as well
as the associated cumulative effects, expected to be in
compliance with pertinent environmental laws, regulations,
policies, and/or executive orders?
(4) What is the anticipated percentage change in pertinent
environmental factors or resources from the proposed project,
plan, or program, and from cumulative effects, and will the
changes be within the normal variability of the factors or
resources? What is the sensitivity of the environment to the
anticipated changes; or is the environment susceptible or
resilient to changes? Will the carrying capacity of the
resource be exceeded?
(5) Are there sensitive human, living, or inanimate receptors to
the environmental stresses from the proposed project, plan,
program, and/or policy, and from cumulative effects?
(6) Can the anticipated negative cumulative effects be mitigated
in a cost-effective and timely manner?
(7) What is the professional judgment of experts in the pertinent
substantive areas, such as water quality, ecology, planning,
landscape architecture, geography, and archaeology?
(8) Are there public concerns due to the cumulative effects of the
proposed project, plan, and/or program, when coupled with
other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future
actions, in the study area?
Two additional specific questions which could be considered in
determining the significance of cumulative effects are:
(1) Are the cumulative effects incompatible with the principles of
environmentally sustainable development (e.g., governmental
policies regardingcoriservation of renewable resources and/or
depletion of nonrenewable resources)?
3-12
-------
(2) Are there differences in the development and environmental
protection/conservation policies of governmental agencies both
within and between potentially affected sovereign countries?
(This may be a significant concern when addressing
transboundary cumulative effects.)
A fundamental issue in CEA is related to when cumulative changes may
cause an environmental system threshold to be exceeded. In this context,
thresholds refer to the point at which added system perturbations, no
matter how small, will result in major system deterioration or collapse
(Contant and Wiggins, 1993). A threshold value can be either a maximum or
minimum number, or a related qualitative measure, which, if exceeded or
not met, causes the predicted effect or resource use, to take on new
importance (Witmer, et al., 1987). Thresholds are related to the carrying
capacity of the relevant biophysical or socio-economic systems.' The
concept of carrying capacity was developed from biological sciences such
as range and game management... .Carrying capacity can be defined as the
ability of biophysical or socio-economic (socio-cultural) systems to
absorb the effects of development changes or human population growth
without associated significant degradation or breakdown. Measurement of
carrying capacity, and hence the determination of thresholds, can be
complicated by natural system variations and compensatory response,
technological innovations, and changing societal expectations and goals
(Kalff, 1995).
Limits of acceptable change (LAC) refers to the change in
environmental components that human societies are prepared to tolerate as
custodians of the environment.
-------
SELECTED REFERENCES
Burria, R.K., and Canter, L.W., "A Practitioner Survey of Cumulative
Impact Assessment," Impact Assessment. Vol. 15, No. 2, June, 1997b, pp.
181-194.
Canter, L.W., and Canty, G.A., "Impact Significance Determination — Basic
Considerations and a Sequenced Approach," Environmental Impact Assessment
Review. Vol. 13, No. 5, September, 1993, pp. 275-297.
Contant, C.K., and Wiggins, L.L., "Toward Defining and Assessing
Cumulative Impacts: Practical and Theoretical Considerations,"
Environmental Analysis — The NEPA Experience. Hildebrand, S.G., and
Cannon, J.B., editors, Lewis Publishers, Inc., Boca Raton, Florida, 1993,
pp. 336-356.
Council on Environmental Quality, "Considering Cumulative Effects Under
the National Environmental Policy Act," January, 1997, Executive Office of
.the President, Washington, O.C.
Cumulative Effects Assessment Working Group, "Cumulative Effects
Assessment Practitioners Guide," December, 1997, draft copy, Canadian
Environmental Assessment Agency, Hull, Quebec, Canada, pp. 3, 9, 13, 16,
26, 43, 61, 64, C-l, and C-2.
Drouin, C., and LeBlanc, P., "The Canadian Environmental Assessment Act
and Cumulative Environmental Effects," Ch. 3, Cumulative Effects
Assessment in Canada; From Concept to Practice. Kennedy, A.J., editor.
Alberta Association of Professional Biologists, Edmonton, Alberta, Canada,
1994, pp. 25-36.
Irwin, F., and Rodes, B., "Making Decisions on Cumulative Environmental
Impacts — A Conceptual Framework," 1992, World Wildlife Fund, Washington,
D.C.
Kreske, D.L., Environmental Impact Statements — A Practical Guide for
Agencies. Citizens, and Consultants. John Wiley and Sons, Inc., New York,
New York, 1996, pp. 7, 166-168, and 332-342.
Rumrill, J.N., and Canter, L.W., "Addressing Future Actions in Cumulative
Effects Assessment," Project Appraisal. Vol. 12, No. 4, December, 1997,
pp. 1-12.
U.S. Bureau of Land Management, "Final Environmental Impact Statement,
Castle Mountain Project, San Bernardino County, California," 1990,
Needles, California.
Wight, P.A., "Limits of Acceptable Change: A Recreational Tourism Tool for
Cumulative Effects Assessment," Ch. 13, Cumulative Effects Assessment in
Canada: From Concept to Practice. Kennedy, A.J., editor. Alberta
Association of Professional Biologists, Edmonton, Alberta, Canada, 1994.
pp. 159-178.
Witmer, G.W., Bain, M.B., Irving, J.S., Kruger, R.L., O'Neil, T.A., Olsen,
R.D., and Stull, E.A., "Cumulative Impact Assessment: Application of a
Methodology," CONF-8708124-1, presented at Waterpower '87 Conference,
American Society of Civil Engineers, August 19-21, 1987, Portland, Oregon.
Ziemer, R.R., "Cumulative Effects Assessment Impact Thresholds: Myths and
Realities," Ch. 25, Cumulative Effects Assessment in Canada; From Concept
to Practice. Kennedy, A.J., editor, Alberta Association of Professional
Biologists, Edmonton, Alberta, Canada, 1994, pp. 319-326.
3-14
-------
CHAPTER 4
SCOPING FOR CUMULATIVE EFFECTS
In the late 1970s, the Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) in the
United States issued regulations for the environmental impact assessment
(EIA) process initiated by the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA).
These regulations were to be focused on a more stream-lined approach in
the preparation of environmental impact statements (EISs). A central
feature of these regulations, which went into effect in July, 1979, was
the concept of scoping. Scoping is targeted to identifying key impacts
and issues; thus, it is focused on more directed studies by selection and
attention to key impacts and issues of concern, including cumulative
effects. In this regard, scoping for cumulative effects is not considered
as separate from scoping for direct and indirect effects (impacts);
rather, it is seen as integral to the overall scoping process.
Scoping is the first step of the EIA process where an impact study
manager can be successful at making the EIA process cost less, count for
more in decision making, and ensure that the public participates
throughout the process. Key concerns related to possible cumulative
effects can be identified during the scoping process. However, if scoping
is treated as a public relations exercise or a legal requirement to be
completed, it is likely the manager does not see scoping as an important
analytical phase of EIA. This will likely result in an undisciplined,
unstructured study that will cost more time and money than is necessary.
Based upon these perspectives, the topics to be addressed herein
include pertinent definitions and components, federal agency involvement
in scoping, general planning considerations for a scoping program, and the
use of an analytical process for identifying and selecting key impacts
(including cumulative effects) and issues from broader lists generated via
multiple meetings, contacts, and information gathering efforts. Baaed
upon these topics, key lessons related to the analytical aspects of
scoping are delineated in the final section.
DEFINITIONS AND COMPONENTS
The term "scoping" refers to an early and open process for
determining the "scope" of issues to be addressed and for identifying the
significant issues related to a proposed action (Council on Environmental
Quality, 1978). The term scope, which is defined in paragraph 1508.25 of
the CEQ regulations, is summarized in Table 4.1 (Council on Environmental
Quality, 1978). As can be seen, both "cumulative actions" and "cumulative
impacts* (effects) are mentioned in the definition of the scope of the
study. These issues need to be considered when a proponent agency
determines the "scope" of the impact study.
The specific objectives of the scoping process have been identified
as follows (Council on Environmental Quality, 1981 and 1986): (1) to
identify the affected public and agency concerns; (2)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; (3) to define the issues and alternatives that will be
examined in detail in the EIS while simultaneously devoting less attention
and time to issues which cause no concern; and (4) to save time in the
4-1
-------
Table 4.1: Definition of Scope as Related to EISs (after Council on
Environmental Quality, 1978)
Scope consists of the range of actions, alternatives, and impacts to
be considered in an EIS. The scope of an individual statement may
depend on its relationships to other statements. To determine the
•cope of EISs, agencies shall consider three types of actions, three
types of alternatives, and three types of impacts. They include:
(a) Actions (other than unconnected single actions) which may
be:
(1) Connected actions, which means that they are closely
related and therefore should be discussed in the
same impact statement. Actions are connected if
they automatically trigger other actions which may
require EISs; cannot or will not proceed unless
other actions are taken previously or simultane-
ously; or are interdependent parts of a larger
action and depend on the larger action for their
justification.
(2) Cumulative actions, which when viewed with other
proposed actions have cumulatively significant
impacts and should, therefore, be discussed in the
same impact statement.
(3) Similar actions, which when viewed with other
reasonably foreseeable or proposed agency actions,
have similarities that provide a basis for
evaluating their environmental consequences
together, such as common timing or geography. An
agency may wish to analyze these actions in the same
impact statement. It should do so when the best way
to assess adequately the combined impacts of similar
actions or reasonable alternatives to such actions
is to treat them in a single impact statement.
(b) Alternatives, which include: (1) the no-action
alternative; (2) other reasonable courses of actions; and
(3) mitigation measures (not in the proposed action).
(c) Impacts, which may be: (1) direct; (2) indirect; and (3)
cumulative.
4-2
-------
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. Objective (3) focuses
on the need to systematically consider and prioritize issues generated
during individual contacts and meetings. Included in objective (3) would
be cumulative actions and cumulative impacts. Scoping can also be used as
a conflict resolution tool if proponent agencies are willing to alter
their proposals as a result of scoping (Council on Environmental Quality,
1981 and 1986).
Table 4.2 contains a summary of paragraph 1501.7 of the CEQ
regulations regarding various components of the scoping process (Council
on Environmental Quality, 1978). While a key component of scoping is
public involvement, the analytical nature of the exercise should not be
lost. In fact, the first contact between proponents of a proposal and the
public may occur during the scoping process (Council on Environmental
Quality, 1981 and 1986), thus it represents the initial opportunity for
public participation in the EIA process. Additional public participation
opportunities include the provision of information on related studies that
can limit or expand the spatial and/or temporal boundaries of the study
area (these are particularly important facets for addressing cumulative
effects), review and feedback on impact studies in progress which can
prevent duplicative efforts, and the review of environmental impact
analyses via environmental assessments (EAs) or draft EISs (Clark, 1994).
In the EIA practice in the United States, EAs refer to preliminary studies
conducted to determine whether the impacts will be significant and thus
the necessity of preparing EISs.
To summarize the public involvement component, scoping in relation
to the inclusion of contacts with others and consideration of their
viewpoints should be (Council on Environmental Quality, 1981 and 1986):
(1) open to the public and state and local governments, as well as
to affected federal agencies—proponent agencies will likely
overlook projects, data, and ongoing plans in a community
unless the scoping is inclusive;
(2) considered as a process and not simply an event or meeting; in
particular, it is not a "public relations" meeting
requirement—in fact, scoping does not necessarily result in
a public meeting;
(3) inclusive of a series of meetings (could be public meeting or
meetings with individual governmental agencies and
nongovernmental organizations — NGOs), telephone
conversations, and/or receipt of written comments from
different interest groups; and
(4) focused on identifying individuals (or agencies or NGOs) who
already have knowledge about a site or an alternative proposal
or a relevant study, and encourage them to make it available.
Related to substantive issues to be identified, including cumulative
effects, the focus of the scoping process should not be limited to impacts
on the physical-chemical and biological features of the affected
environment. Impacts related to sociocultural and socioeconomic issues
should also be given attention and incorporated, as appropriate, in the
subsequent EIS (Howell, 1993; and Canter and Clark, 1997). This is
important in the EIA process in the United States because the tern
"environment" is defined to include, physical-chemical, biological,
cultural, and socioeconomic features. Further, it should be recognized
4-3
-------
Table 4.2: Practical Aspects and Components of the Scoping Process (after
Council on Environmental Quality, 1978)
As soon as practicable after its decision to prepare an EIS and
before the scoping process the lead agency shall publish a notice of
intent in the Federal Register.
(a) As part of the scoping process, the lead agency shall:
(1) Invite the participation of affected federal, state,
and local agencies, any affected Indian tribe, the
proponent of the action, and other interested
persons (including those who might not be in accord
with the action on environmental grounds).
(2) Determine the scope and the significant issues to be
analyzed in depth in the EIS.
(3) Identify and eliminate from detailed study the
issues which are not significant or which have been
covered by prior environmental review (narrowing the
discussion of these issues in the statement to a
brief presentation of why they will not have a
significant effect on the human environment or
providing a reference to their.coverage elsewhere).
.(4) Allocate assignments for preparation of the EIS
among the lead and cooperating agencies, with the
lead agency retaining responsibility for the
statement.
(5) Indicate any public EAs and other EISs which are
being or will be prepared that are related to but
are not part of the scope of the impact statement
under consideration.
(6) Identify other environmental review and consultation
requirements so the lead and cooperating agencies
may prepare other required analyses and studies
concurrently with, and integrated with, the EIS.
(7) Indicate the relationship between the timing of the
preparation of environmental analyses and the
agency's tentative planning and decision-making
schedule.
(b) As part of the scoping process, the lead agency may:
(1) Set page limits on environmental documents.
(2) Set time limits.
(3) Adopt procedures to combine its EIA process with its
scoping process.
(4) Hold an early scoping meeting or meetings which may
be integrated with any other early planning meeting
the agency has. Such a scoping meeting will often
be appropriate when the impacts of a particular
action are confined to specific sites.
(c) An agency shall revise the determinations made under
paragraphs (a) and (b} if substantial changes are made
later in the proposed action, or if significant new
circumstances or information arise which bear on the
• - proposal or its impacts.
4-4
-------
that cumulative effects assessments (CEAs) have typically focused on
biophysical consequences, with only limited attention to socio-cultural
concerns. Therefore, cumulative effects on socio-cultural (socioeconomic)
features of the study area are particularly important to identify during
the scoping process.
Finally, while the law and practice in the United States has
emphasized scoping in the preparation of EISs, the ever increasing
reliance on EAs with mitigation make scoping in EAs more necessary and
useful. The resultant document may be called a "mitigated FONSI" (finding
of no significant impact). Making decisions about the scope of mitigation
and the requirements of monitoring is as important as determining what to
study and who should be involved in the study. Further, since cumulative
effects should be considered in EAs, any scoping related to EAs should at
least explore the topic of cumulative effects concerns. 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 subsequent notice of intent expressly provides that written comments
suggesting impacts and alternatives for study will still be considered
(Council on Environmental Quality, 1981 and 1986).
FEDERAL AGENCY INVOLVEMENT
Federal agencies in the United States initiate or participate in the
scoping process for one or more of the following reasons (U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, 1984): (1) planning and implementation
of a scoping program for a proposed action wherein the agency is the lead
agency; (2) serving as a cooperating agency to a lead agency for a
proposed action, thus involving participation in (and possibly some
planning for) the scoping process; and/or (3) participation in the scoping
process for a proposed action of another lead agency, including responding
to scoping requests and providing input regarding the proposed action.
Cumulative effects identification and prioritization could be incorporated
in each of these reasons.
Because of their potential involvement in planning and implementing
scoping programs, agencies typically address scoping in their respective
EIA guidelines. For example, Sec. 230.12 of the U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers guidelines addresses the notice of intent and scoping (U.S. Army
Corps of Engineers, 1988).
As soon as practicable after a decision is made to prepare an
EIS or supplement, the scoping process for the draft EIS or
supplement will be announced in a notice of intent. Guidance
on preparing a notice of intent to prepare an EIS for
publication in the Federal Register is discussed in Appendix
C of these guidelines. Also, a public notice will be widely
distributed inviting public participation in the scoping
process. This process is the key to preparing a concise EIS
and clarifying the significant issues to be analyzed in depth.
Public concerns on issues, studies needed, alternatives to be
examined, procedures and other related matters will be
addressed during scoping.
GENERAL PLANNING CONSIDERATIONS FOR A SCOPING PROGRAM
The CEQ regulations are generally .flexible in all areas and, in the
case of scoping, leave the detailed aspects of the scoping process to the
4-5
-------
federal agency serving as the lead agency (Mandelker, 1995). Therefore,
specific planning for an appropriate scoping process for a proposed
action, including cumulative effects considerations, is needed on the part
of the lead (proponent) agency.— Accordingly, four elements can be
considered as fundamental to planning a scoping program for each proposed
action: (1) delineation of the scoping objectives—these could include
generic objectives as per the CEQ regulations, as well as specific
objectives related to the unique proposed action in the specific
geographical location; (2) identification of the publics (stakeholders)
who should be contacted and invited to participate in the scoping process;
(3) selection of one-to-several public participation techniques to be used
to provide information about the proposed action and to solicit input from
the interested publics; and (4) development of a strategy for analyzing
the provided inputs and their use in the prioritization of issues to be
addressed in the impact study, including cumulative effects issues. The
fourth element is the basis for the analytical considerations to be
described in the next section.
Everitt (1995) has suggested that there are two key concepts
associated with the scoping process and, by inference, planning the
process: (1) consultation with stakeholders (various publics) to identify
issues and concerns; and (2) evaluation and prioritization of identified
issues. A "public" can be defined as any person, or group of people, that
has a distinctive interest or stake in an issue (Federal Environmental
Assessment Review Office, 1988). Publics can be categorized in many ways;
examples include: (1) geographical proximity to the proposed action; (2)
focused on economic development; (3) focused on environmental protection
or preservation; (4) governmental agencies with differing environmental
interests and responsibilities; (5) professional societies and interest
groups; and/or (6) "nongovernmental organizations" (NGOs), including a
diversity of groups ranging from preservationists to labor unions to
"green movement" entities.
Some pragmatic considerations in planning a scoping program are
highlighted in Table 4.3 (Council on Environmental Quality, 1981 and
1986). Such considerations are related to timeliness, information
communication, and follow-on usage of the inputs from various publics.
These considerations represent fundamental concerns in planning an
effective scoping program for a proposed action. Item (6) in Table 4.3
highlights the need to prioritize and select relevant issues.
Identification of Relevant Publics
Four broad approaches can be used to target relevant publics for
inclusion in scoping programs: (1) there are always inherent interests in
a project; thus local and regional governmental entities are one group of
publics; (2) self-identification; (3) third-party identification; and (4)
identification by staff of the lead (proponent) agency (Creighton, 1981).
"Self-identification* simply means that individuals or groups step forward
and indicate an interest, either pro or con, in the scoping process. The
use of the news media, the preparation of brochures and newsletters, and
the conduction of well-publicized public meetings are all means of
encouraging continuing self-identification. Third-party and staff
identification are self-explanatory as targeting approaches.
Techniques for Information Communication
The public can participate effectively only if it has been provided
with accurate information about the proposed action. Numerous techniques
exist for communicating with identified publics, but special attention
4-6
-------
Table 4.3: Pragmatic Considerations in Planning a Scoping Program for a
Proposed Action (after Council on Environmental Quality, 1981
and 1986)
Start Scoping After You Have Sufficient Information
Scoping cannot be useful until the lead 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.
Prepare an Information Packet
In many cases, scoping of the EIS has been preceded by
preparation of an 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. 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.
Design the Scoping Process for Each Project
There is no established or required procedure for scoping. The
process can be conducted 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. If you
decide that a public meeting is appropriate, you still must
decide what type of meeting, or how many meetings, to hold.
Issue the Public Notice
A preliminary review of the proposal, from 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 initiating 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. But
use of the Federal Register is not an absolute requirement, and
other means of public notice often are more effective, including
local newspapers, radio and TV, posting notices in public
places, etc. What is important is that the notice actually
reach the affected public.
4-7
-------
Table 4.3 (continued):
5. Conduction of a Public Meeting
One of the most important factors in a successful scoping
process is the training and experience of the meeting moderator.
Training courses on how to conduct a meeting effectively can be
useful. Specific techniques can be 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 (or EA). It
is not concerned with the ultimate decision on the proposal. At
the point of scoping therefore, in one sense all the parties
involved have a common goal, which is a thorough environmental
review. Finally, informal meetings in small groups are the most
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 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/her
opinions on the others.
6. Determine 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, in fact, significant and which ones are
not. The decision of what the EIS (or EA) 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.
7. Allocate Work Assignments and Establish Schedules
Following the public participation in whatever form, and the
selection of issues to be covered, the lead agency must allocate
the EIS (or EA) 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. 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 (project proponent).
4-8
-------
must be paid to the kind of public that is participating. For example,
participation of diverse groups is essential to establishing potential
impacts on low-income communities. In some cases agencies should seek
alternative methods to inform the public of a proposed action (e.g., video
and computer demonstrations) as opposed to relying solely upon written and
formulaic processes.
Some scoping techniques can encompass public meetings. Although
this is the most common forum, its effectiveness is often minimized by the
agencies' attempts to "sell" the project to the public, rather than
scoping the boundaries of the study. Other examples of techniques include
the use of letters, questionnaires, and telephone calls; hotlines; drop-in
centers; workshops; citizens' advisory committees; and many others.
Information on these techniques and others is in Canter (1996). For
example, a videotape of proposed sites for a project is an excellent tool
for explaining site differences and limitations during the lecture-format
portion of a scoping meeting (Council on Environmental Quality, 1981 and
1986). Scoping workshops can also be useful, with their success, in large
part, depending on the degree of advance preparation; therefore, such
preparation should be as comprehensive as possible. Advance preparation
for workshops might include distribution of various types of brochures,
planning visits, coverage by the media, and direct contacts with
interested parties. Finally, because scoping is grounded in public
participation, individuals leading the scoping process need skills in
planning such meetings, their productive management, and the defusing of
possible heated disagreements.
Usage of Outcomes of the Scoping Process
The primary outcome of the scoping process should be a targeted
range of issues and impacts to be addressed in the impact study. The
impacts can include direct, indirect, and cumulative effects. Further, in
some EIA systems, for example, in Canada, scoping can be used to establish
the terms of reference (TOR) for such an impact study (Everitt, 1995).
The TOR should specify the information and analysis required to conduct
the assessment and to prepare an EIA report.
Scoping results can also be used in pre-or-post-EIS monitoring
planning. For example, structured impact hypotheses which relate project
actions to environmental linkages and valued ecosystem components (VECs)
are used in some environmental impact studies. When such hypotheses are
used, scoping can be defined as the procedure in which actions, linkages,
and VECs are extracted from the conceptual model (Bernard, Hunsaker, and
Marmorek, 1993). Scoping can thus be used in developing an environmental
monitoring program for the proposed action, a portion of the program could
be focused on cumulative effects. This type of scoping is often associated
with highly focused interdisciplinary workshops conducted as part of the
Adaptive Environmental Assessment and Management approach.
Other potential outcomes of the scoping process could include (Ashe
and Sadler, 1995): (1) the refocusing of baseline studies and/or
monitoring as appropriate; (2) the identification of suitable
methodologies and methods for next-phase impact analysis and public
consultation; (3) recognition that this process also constitutes a
continuing rescoping exercise, track accordingly and maintain flexibility;
and/or (4) the preparation of a scoping statement or report with brief
updates as necessitated by changes.
4-9
-------
Special Considerations for Transboundarv Impacts
A final issue related to planning a scoping program may entail the
need to address transboundary direct, indirect, and cumulative effects of
proposed project*. A major step toward requiring that transboundary
impacts be addressed for development projects resulted from a recent
multination agreement, namely, the 1991 Convention on EIA in a
Transboundary Context which was adopted by 28 countries and the European
Community (Economic Commission for Europe, 1991). In February, 1992, the
United States also signed the Convention (Council on Environmental
Quality, 1993). The Convention stipulates the obligations of parties
(signees or member countries) to carry out the assessment of environmental
impacts and to arrange for the application of the assessment at an early
stage of planning for certain activities likely to cause significant
adverse transboundary effects. Public participation (presumably to
include scoping) should be used in the EZA procedure at the project level,
and foreign participants should be given the same opportunities for
comment as those given to the local public (Lee, Walsh, and Jones, 1991).
A scoping program encompassing transboundary impacts (including
cumulative effects) could encounter a variety of difficulties,
particularly when two or more countries (or states in the United States)
are involved. Examples of such difficulties which could arise during
scoping include: (1) conflicts related to governmental development
objectives for shared resources; (2) differences or incompatibilities
between environmental standards and policies, and their enforcement; (3)
nonuniformity of the number and types of governmental agencies addressing
environmental media or natural resources; (4) conflicts in viewpoints
expressed by various publics from different geographical entities; (5)
coordination difficulties with multiple governmental agencies in
potentially affected areas; (6) different and possible conflicting
mitigation requirements proposed as a basis for project concurrence by
relevant agencies in potentially affected areas; and (7) EIA policy and
procedural differences between countries (or other political boundaries).
ANALYTICAL CONSIDERATIONS IK SCOPING FOR CUMULATIVE EFFECTS
The scoping process should be based on an analytical approach which
involves: (1) breaking the proposed action into relevant parts and
establishing the relationships between the parts and their environmental
consequences; and (2) prior it izat ion of received issues and impact
information from the scoping process based on both baseline environmental
conditions and anticipated changes. The first part can be accomplished
via careful delineation of the proposed action and related direct,
indirect, and cumulative effects. The second part is more difficult to
address. This difficulty is often demonstrated in EISs which report a
list of identified issues and impacts from scoping, and then highlight a
subset of issues/impacts without a clear delineation of why the subset
items were chosen.
Three issue*'are of particular importance in scoping for cumulative
effectsr (1) the preparation- (homework) of the «tudy team relative to
identifying cumulative effects for the proposed action and related actions
prior to any public scoping activities; (2) the realization that the
•coping process is iterative* regarding identifying, sharpening, and
prioritizing cumulative effects concerns; and (3) the absolute necessity
to document the process, findings, analysis, and results. Attention
herein will be primarily related to the identification of cumulative
effects.
4-10
-------
Methods for Identifying Cumulative Effects
Some key questions which can be used to identify cumulative effects
to explore prior to and during the scoping process include:
(1) Regarding the proposed action:
(a) is it a programmatic action or is it a project that is
part of a larger program?
(b) is it part of a continuing activity?
(c) is it is part of a larger action (a segment) such that
it is connected to other actions?
(d) are there other types of present and reasonably
foreseeable future actions by the proponent agency which
will be in the proximity of the proposed action?
(2) What other present and reasonably foreseeable future actions
are in progress or are being planned by other governmental
agencies and the private sector?
(3) Are cumulative effects of sufficient concern (of such
potential significance) that they should be considered in the
EIS (or EA)?
(4) Which types of cumulative effects (e.g., additive,
countervailing, or synergistic from single or multiple
actions) on which resources, ecosystems, and/or human
communities should be addressed in the EIS (or EA)?
(5) Are there obvious indicators which could be used for the
cumulative effects?
(6) Are there analogs (case studies) which may have relevance for
the cumulative effects of concern?
(7) What are the appropriate geographical boundaries for
encompassing the cumulative effects of concern? What
scientific and/or policy bases should be used in establishing
such boundaries? (This is a particularly important
consideration which should be addressed in the scoping
process).
(8) What are the appropriate temporal boundaries and what
considerations should be used in establishing such boundaries?
(This is also a particularly important consideration in
scoping for cumulative effects).
(9) What criteria should be used in determining a significant
cumulative effect?
(10) Are there sources of information for existing environmental
conditions related to the cumulative effects of concern? See
Table 4.4 for examples of information sources (Council on
Environmental Quality, 1997). Is there relevant information
on planning goals, guidelines, standards, thresholds, carrying
capacity, and/or limits of acceptable change for the
resources, ecosystems, and/or human communities of concern?
4-11
-------
Table 4.4: Examples of Sources of Information for CEA
(after Council on Environmental Quality, 1997)
Individuals
Historical
societies
Schools and
universities
Other
collections
Natural history
surveys
Private
organizations
Government
agencies
Project
proponent
• former and present landholders
• long-time residents
• long-time resource users
• long-time resource managers
Local, state, and regional societies could
provide:
personal journals
photos
newspapers
individual contacts
central libraries
natural history or cultural resources
collections or museums
field stations
faculty in history, natural and social
sciences, and engineering
Private, city, state, or federal collections in:
• archaeology
• botany
• zoology
• natural history
• private
• state
• national
• land preservation
• habitat preservation
• conservation
• cultural resources history
• religious institutions
• chambers of commerce
• voluntary neighborhood organizations
• local park districts
• local planning agencies
• local records-keeping agencies
• state and federal land management agencies
• state and federal fish, wildlife, and
conservation agencies
• state and federal environmental regulatory
agencies
• state planning agencies
• state and federal records-keeping agencies
• state and federal surveys
• state and federal agricultural and forestry
agencies
• state historic preservation offices
• Indian tribal government planning, natural
resource, and cultural resource offices
• project plans and supporting environmental
documentation
4-12
-------
Some sources of information (or approaches) which can be used for
identifying cumulative effects prior to or during the scoping process
include:
(1) Professional knowledge and experience of individuals (yourself
and individual interdisciplinary EIA study team members, if
appropriate); and the collective knowledge and experience of
the study team following site visits and team discussions. Of
critical importance is for individuals and the team to be
sensitive to incremental impacts and possible cumulative
effects during conduction of the EIA process. See Table 4.5
for some additional "prompter questions" to consider in
identifying potential cumulative effects (Council on
Environmental Quality, 1997).
(2) Review of planning activities of the proponent agency and
other potentially relevant agencies (or private sector
developers). Three examples of planning activities which
should be explored during scoping include: (1) the planning
which resulted in the proposed action; (2) other planning by
the proposing agency; and (3) planning activities of other
governmental agencies or private sector developers. The
individuals who planned the proposed action should be
consulted to determine whether the proposed action is one of
several similar actions to be proposed (multiple similar
actions) or whether the proposed action is closely related or
phased with other actions (connected actions). These reviews
can be useful in identifying both present and reasonably
foreseeable future actions.
(3) Consultations on potential cumulative effects, via phone,
letter, e-mail, or in person, with individuals or key
organizational representatives within the proponent agency,
other agencies, regulatory authorities, regional planning
organizations, private industrial and/or housing development
organizations, public interest groups, and environmental NGOs.
Such consultations could be held during both scoping for an EA
and an EIS.
(4) Solicitation of the expert opinion of other experienced EIA
professionals, or substantive area experts, regarding
potential types of cumulative effects associated with the
proposed action in its spatial and temporal context.
(5) Conduction of reviews of published literature on: (1) typical
cumulative effects concerns for the type of proposed action;
(2) typical cumulative effects concerns for the types of
resources, ecosystems, and human communities in the vicinity
of the proposed action; (3) case studies which have been
conducted for similar types of proposed actions; and (4)
general cumulative effects studies, for example, watershed
studies focused on cumulative effects on water quality or
quantity due to land use alterations in the drainage area.
(6) Conduction of briefings followed by question/answer sessions
in small to large public meetings. The meetings can rang*
from informal gatherings to the receipt of testimony from a
large number of people which is transcribed by a court
reporter.
4-13
-------
Table 4.5: Questions for Identifying Potential Cumulative Effects
(after Council on Environmental Quality, 1997)
1. What is the value of the affected resource or ecosystem? Is it:
protected by legislation or planning goals?
ecologically important?
culturally important?
economically important?
important to the well-being of a human community?
2. Is the proposed action one of several similar past, present, or
future actions in the same geographic area? (areas could be land
management units, watersheds, regulatory regions, ecoregions,
etc.)
3. Do other activities (whether governmental or private) in the
same geographic area have environmental effects similar to those
of the proposed action?
4. Will the proposed action (in combination with other planned
activities) affect any natural resources; cultural resources;
social or economic units; or ecosystems of regional, national,
or global public concern?
5. Have any recent or ongoing NEPA analyses of similar actions or
nearby actions identified important adverse or beneficial
cumulative effect issues?
6. Has the impact been historically significant, such that the
importance of the resource is defined by past loss, past gain,
or investments to restore resources? -
7. Might the proposed action involve any of the following
cumulative effects issues?
• long range transport of air pollutants resulting in
ecosystem acidification or eutrophication
• air emissions resulting in degradation of regional air
quality
• release of greenhouse gases resulting in climate
modification
• loading large water bodies with discharges of sediment,
thermal, and toxic pollutants
• reduction or contamination of ground water supplies
• changes in hydrological regimes of major rivers and
estuaries
• long-term containment and disposal of hazardous wastes
• mobilization of persistent or bioaccumulated substances
through the food chain
• decreases in the quantity and quality of soils
• loss of natural habitats or historic character through
residential, commercial, and industrial development
• social, economic, or cultural effects on low-income or
minority communities resulting from ongoing development
• ' habitat fragmentation from infrastructure construction or
changes in land use
• habitat degradation from grazing, timber harvesting, and
other consumptive uses
• disruption of migrating fish and wildlife populations
• loss of biological diversity
4-14
-------
(7) Review of public opinion information about local valuable
resources and ecosystems, stressed environmental situations in
the local or regional area, and the proposed action itself.
(8) Review of relevant NEPA documentation prepared by the
proponent agency and other agencies with projects in the
vicinity of the proposed action. Such documentation should
include both EISs and EAs.
Finally, numerous methods (tools) have been utilized over the last
25 years to meet the various activities required in the conduction of
impact studies. Several such EIA methods can be used to facilitate the
identification of direct, indirect, and cumulative effects and related
issues during the scoping process. Examples of pertinent methods for
cumulative effects include: analogs, checklists, expert opinion, expert
systems, literature reviews, interaction matrices, monitoring of receptors
near analogs, networks, overlay mapping, and risk assessment. Table 4.6
contains brief descriptions of each of these 10 types of methods. Of the
listed methods, analogs, checklists focused on cumulative effects (like
the list of questions in Table 4.5), expert opinion, literature reviews,
interaction matrices, and networks appear to be most useful at this time.
Prioritization and Selection »
~A ()
Prioritization and selection of identified issues and impacts,
including cumulative pffects, can be achieved via a ^direct professional
judgment approach or .a qualitative review approach which incorporates
professional judgment. A necessary feature of either approach is the
careful documentation of the analytical process and its results. As
noted, professional judgment is actually involved in both approaches, with
the distinction in the first approach being that issues are chosen based
upon the professional knowledge and judgment of individuals on an
interdisciplinary study team, or the collective judgment of the study team
as a whole. In this regard, specific decision criteria for comparing
issues may not be delineated, with choices probably being related to the
familiarity and possible previous experience by individuals on the team.
When effects (including cumulative effects) and issues are selected based
on qualitative comparisons, these selections are typically made based on
identifying decision criteria and then comparing candidate effects and
issues, possibly on a relative basis, in conjunction with each of the
listed criteria. The typical process involves: (1) the identification of
decision criteria for issues; (2) the qualitative comparison of candidate
issues relative to the decision criteria; and (3) the selection of issues
for inclusion based on the information in (2) coupled with professional
judgment. Usage of this three-step approach can facilitate the necessary
documentation of the selection process.
Examples of some decision criteria which might be used in the
scoping process for cumulative effects include:
(1) vulnerability of resources, ecosystems, and human communities
to changes (stresses);
(2) compatibility with land use policies and plans;
(3) compliance with environmental standards for air, surface
water, ground water, and soil quality;
(4) thresholds and carrying capacities for resources, ecosystems,
and human communities;
-------
Table 4.6: Brief Descriptions of 10 Types of Methods Potentially Useful
in Scoping for Cumulative Effects
(1) Analog* refer lo information from existing project! of • similar type to the project being sddressed. with monitoring
information related to experienced impacts being used as an analogy to the anticipated impacts of the proposed
project.
(2) There are many variations of checklists, with this type of methodology being a frequently utilized approach.
Conceptually, checklists typically contain a series of kerns, impact issues, or questions which the user should
address.
(3) Expert opinion, also referred to as professional judgment, represents a widely used method. Specific tools which
can be used to facilitate information development include the conduction of Delphi studies, the use of the adaptive
environmental assessment process to delineate qualitative/quantitative models for impact prediction, or the separate
development of model* for environmental processes.
(4) Expert systems refer to an emerging type of method which draws upon the professions! knowledge and judgment of
experts in particular topical areas. Such knowledge is encoded, via a aeries of rule* or heuristic*, into expert
system shells in computer software.
(5) Literature reviews refer to assembled infomution on type* of projects and their typical impact*. As noted for
analogs, such information can be useful for delineating potential impacts, quantifying anticipated changes, and
identifying mitigation measure*.
(6) Interaction matrices represent a widely used type of method within the EIA process. Variations of simple
interaction matrices have been developed to emphasize particular desirable features.
(7) Monitoring (field studies) of receptors near analog* represents a specialized approach in that monitoring can be
conducted of actual impacts resulting from projects of a similar type to the project being analyzed.
(8) Networks delineate connections or relationships between project actions and resultant impact*. They also referred to
as impact trees, impact chains, cause-effect diagrams, or consequence diagrams. Networks are useful for showing
primary, secondary, and tertiary impact relationship*.
(9) Overlay mapping was used early in the practice of EIA, with the usage consisting of the assemblage of maps
overlying a base map and displaying different environmental characteristics. The application of geographical
information systems (CIS) via computer usage has been an emphasis in recent years, with this technology
representing an emerging type of method.
(10) Risk assessment refers to an emerging tool initially used for establishing health-based environmental standards. It
encompasses the identification of the risk, consideration of dose-response relationships, conduction of an exposure
assessment, and evaluation of the associated risk*. Risk assessment can be viewed from the perspective of both
human health and ecological risks.
4-16
-------
(5) effect on protected areas;
(6) effect on threatened/endangered species, or cultural
resources;
(7) compatibility with sustainable development principles;
(8) disagreement among experts as to the significance of
anticipated cumulative effects;
(9) level of public concern regarding cumulative effects;
(10) mitigation possibilities for significant cumulative effects;
(11) "added value" to decision-making of information if addressed
(time to address, etc.); and
(12) likelihood of a lawsuit if cumulative effects are not properly
addressed.
Table 4.7 illustrates how the candidate effects and issues can be
displayed versus the decision criteria. The "three level comparison code*
can be used to rate each effect or issue relative to each criterion.
Summation of the types of codes assigned to each issue can be useful in
prioritization and selection of cumulative effects (as well as other
effects and issues). In the illustration in Table 4.7, candidate effects
or issues 1 and 2 should be included in the scope of the impact study,
(number 1 has 2 Ps, 1 M, and 2 Ns; while number 2 has 5 Ps), while number
5 could be excluded (it has 5 Ns). Issues 3 and 4 could be eliminated
following a brief review of the listed "M" codes for each.
Research Needs
The majority of the attention given to scoping in published
literature is associated with identifying various publics and using a
variety of public participation techniques to accomplish scoping. What is
often unclear is the relationship between information gathered during
various scoping activities and the actual selection of informational
topics (including cumulative effects) for inclusion in the subsequent
impact study. This concern was addressed in a scoping workshop at the
Sixteenth Annual Meeting of the International Association of Impact
Assessment held in Estoril, Portugal in June, 1996. The following
"research needs" were identified regarding improvements in the analytical
nature of scoping for direct, indirect, and/or cumulative effects in the
EIA process:
(1) It is important that consideration be given to the delineation
of criteria which could be used for determining either the
importance of existing environmental resources or the
importance of anticipated impacts (including cumulative
effects), with such criteria then used for purposes of
evaluation of the information gathered during scoping. These
criteria can form the basis for the actual selection process
for items to be addressed in the impact study.
(2) Simple tools are need to determine environmental suitability
or vulnerability, with such tools then used for purposes of
identifying critical environmental resources that might be
cumulatively impacted by a proposed project and related
projects. Such a suitability or vulnerability analysis could
4-17
-------
Table 4.7: Example of Decision Matrix for
Qualitative Review Approach
Candidate
Effects
and
Issues
1
2
3
4
5
Decision Criteria*
a
M
P
N
N
N
b
P
P
M
N
N
c
P
P
M
N
N
d
N
P
N
M
N
e
N
P
N
N
N
the decision criteria is pertinent to the effect or issue, thus
suggesting the inclusion of the effect or issue in the impact
study.
M - the decision criteria may be pertinent to the effect or issue,
thus suggesting the gathering of additional pertinent information
prior to making a decision for inclusion.
N * the decision criteria is not relevant to the effect or issue,
'thus it will not be necessary to address the effect or issue beyond
documenting its consideration and elimination.
*The decision criteria could be expressed in the form of questions.
4-18
-------
be presented in scoping meetings or be developed as one
component of the analytical process following such meetings.
(3) An important aspect of the scoping process is related to how
it can be used to identify potential mitigation measures or
alternatives which could be considered in conjunction with the
proposed project and cumulative effects of concern.
(4) it is also noted that the majority of scoping efforts to date
have been oriented to specific projects, with less experience
gathered on scoping for strategic environmental assessment
(SEA) which addresses policies, programs, or plans. The
scoping process as applied to SEA and cumulative effects
should be considered in terms of a complete range of research
needs and opportunities.
KEY LESSONS RELATED TO SCOPING
Four key lessons can be identified from collective experiences on
planning and implementing the scoping process in the United States over
the last 15(+) years. These lessons can be categorized into perspective,
planning, prioritization, and performance categories. The "perspective
lesson" is .fundamental; that is, the scoping process (including scoping
for cumulative effects) should be viewed as an opportunity to gather
pertinent information so as to make the EIA process more efficient and
effective. Scoping should not be perceived as another bureaucratic
requirement to be met, with the "requirement" detracting from the
opportunity to do substantive work on the impact study for the proposed
action.
Several -planning lessons" can be identified, including a
fundamental point that the scoping process for a specific proposed action
needs to be tailored to the type of action, geographical location, and
potentially affected publics. Numerous techniques exist for achieving
effective public participation in the scoping process. Several techniques
focused on different publics should probably be used in a scoping program.
Also, individuals serving as leaders in scoping efforts should be
professionally committed to the solicitation of public viewpoints and
trained in the facilitation of public meetings.
The "prioritization lesson" relates to the need for the lead
(proponent) agency to prioritize the inputs received during the scoping
process. Additional attention needs to be given to systematic approaches
which can be used by the lead agency in prioritizing issues and impacts
(including cumulative effects) into those to be addressed in the EIS (or
EA), and those which were considered and eliminated for whatever reason.
The majority of the published literature and experience on scoping ha*
focused on incorporating public participation to facilitate the
identification of impacts and issues; considerably less attention has been
given to subsequent prioritization needs.
The "performance lesson" relates to the need for careful
documentation of the scoping process within the subsequent EIS (or EA).
Such documentation should include, as a minimum, a clear description of
the process, the received inputs related to impacts and issues, and how
each such impact or issue (including each potential cumulative effect) was
prioritized and addressed/not addressed within the EIS (or EA). Much of
this documentation could be included in a supporting appendix to the EIS
(or EA).
4-19
-------
SELECTED REFERENCES
Ashe, J., and Sadler, B.A., "Conclusions and Recommendations," Proceedings
of a Workshop on ElA Process Strengthening. Canberra, Australia, 1995.
Bernard, D.P., Hunsaker, Jr., O.B., and Marmorek, O.K., "Tools for
Improving Predictive Capabilities of Environmental Impact Assessments:
Structured Hypotheses, Audits, and Monitoring," Environmental Analysis—
The NEPA Experience. Hildebrand, S.G., and Cannon, J.B., editors, Lewis
Publishers, Inc., Boca Raton, Florida, 1993, pp. 547-564.
Canter, L.W., Environmental Impact Assessment. Second Edition, McGraw-Hill
Book Company, Inc., New York, New York, 1996, pp. 601-609.
Canter, L.W., and Clark, E.R., "NEPA Effectiveness — A Survey of
Academics," EIA Review. Vol. 17, No. 5, September, 1997, pp. 313-327
(feature article).
Clark, E.R., "Cumulative Effects Assessment: A Tool for Sustainable
Development,* Impact Assessment. Vol. 12, No. 3, 1994, pp. 319-331.
Council on Environmental Quality, "National Environmental Policy Act —
Regulations," Federal Register. Vol. 43, No. 230, November 29, 1978, pp.
55978-56007.
Council on Environmental Quality, "Memorandum: Questions and Answers
About the NEPA Regulations," Federal Register. Vol. 46, March 23, 1981, p.
18026 ff., and as amended, Vol. 51, April 25, 1986, p. 15618 ff.
Council on Environmental Quality, "Memorandum: Scoping Guidance," April
30, 1981, Washington, D.C.
Council on Environmental Quality, "Environmental Quality," Twenty-third
Annual Report, 1993, U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, D.C.,
pp. 151—172.
Council on Environmental Quality, "Considering Cumulative Effects Under
the National Environmental Policy Act," January, 1997, Executive Office of
the President, Washington, D.C., pp. 13 and 33.
Creighton, J.L., "Identifying Publics/Staff Identification Techniques," in
Public Involvement Techniquest A Reader of Ten Years Experience at the
Institute of Water Resources. Creighton, J.L., and Delli Priscoli, J.D.,
editors, IWR Staff Rep. 81-1, U.S. Army Engineer Institute for Water
Resources, Fort Belvoir, Virginia, 1981.
Economic Commission for Europe, "Convention on Environmental Impact
Assessment in a Transboundary Context," E/ECE/1250, 1991, United Nations,
New York, New York.
Everitt, R., "Scoping of Environmental Impact Assessments," paper
presented at Workshop on EIA Process Strengthening, Canberra, Australia,
1995 •
Federal Environmental Assessment Review Office, "Manual on Public
Involvement in Environmental Assessment: Planning and Implementing Public
Involvement Programs," 1988, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada, 3 Vols., pp. 8, 11-
15, 33—Vol. 1, pp. 21-22, 26, 37—Vol. 2, and pp. 2, 41, 54, 57-60—Vol.
3 •
4-20
-------
Howell, B.J., "Social Impact Assessment and Cultural Conservation:
Implications for Local Public Involvement in Planning," Environmental
Analysis—The NEPA Experience. Hildebrand, S.G., and Cannon, J.B.,
editors, Lewis Publishers, Inc., Boca Raton, Florida, 1993, pp. 274-288.
Lee, N., Walsh, F., and Jones, C.E., "The European Commission's EIA
Activities," EIA Newsletter. No. 6, 1991, University of Manchester,
Manchester, England, p. 4.
Mandelker, D.R., NEPA Law and Litioation. Second Edition, Clark, Boardman,
Callaghan, Deerfield, Illinois, 1995, pp. 7-27 and 7-28.
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, "Environmental Quality: Procedures for
Implementing the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA)," Federal
Register. Vol. 53, No. 22, February 3, 1988, pp. 3120-3137.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, "Policy and Procedures Manual —
Chapter 3 — Pre-EIS Review Activities," October, 1984, Washington, D.C.,
pp. 3-1 to 3-4.
4-21
-------
CHAPTER 5
METHODS FOR CEA
r
The focus of this chapter is on methods which can be used to
accomplish one or more purposes in a CEA. Sections are included on
desirable characteristics of methods, comparative reviews of methods, and
examples of methods used in CEA studies. Also included is information on
several approaches for selecting a method.
DESIRABLE CHARACTERISTICS OP CEA METHODS
Several authors have delineated desirable characteristics for CEA
methods. The following information, which is arranged in chronological
order, illustrate the ranges of identified characteristics. In an initial
list, Horak, Vlachos, and Cline (1983) identified eight desirable
characteristics of a CEA method: (1) emphasis on multiple projects and
actions; * (2)•• consideration -of off-site .impacts and effects;,. (3)
interaction and synergism. among act ions, _ impacts, and effects; (4) ability .
to aggregate effects; (5) consideration of ecological functional aspects;
(6) consideration of ..ecological structural aspects; (7) ability to
predict; and (8) adaptability*• They then evaluated 64 extant EIA and
impact prediction methods relative to these eight criteria and determined
that most did not meet them.
Witmer (1985) identified the following desirable characteristics of
any method used for CEA: .,(1) .it should specifically address, multiple
projects or activities;. (2)~ it should be flexible and allow for adaptation^
to the basin-specific array of possible site-variable-impact combinations;'
(3) it should incorporate the analysis of a large geographic region with.
flexible boundaries; (4) it should be designed to identify cumulative
effects and other developmental activities that may occur, over an extended
time frame; (5) it should specifically address interactions and syneegisms
and., incorporate an approach for aggregating impacts; (6J itt .should.,
incorporate public participation in the process; and . (7) it should be
practical in terms of time and monetary requirements.
Irving, et al., (1986) identified the following criteria (or
features) which a CEA methodology should exhibit: (1) it. ^should
specifically address multiple developments or. land use practice*; ,(2Jit
should incorporate scoping to facilitate the narrowing of the list:* of
potential impacts and impacted species and resources; (3), it should be
adaptable to allow for the large array of possible Bite-resource-impact
combinations; (4) it should have flexible boundaries * in time and space
because significant cumulative effects may occur offsite (at least in the
traditional sense) or over an extended time frame; (5) it should be able
to aggregate or tally incremental and interactive^ effects.' to give an
estimate of the overall amount of effect to which a species or resource is.,
being exposed; and (6) it should allow for differential levels'"of
resolution, that is,, it should allow for a more general, extensive
analysis of the cumulative effects of all relevant developments, projects,
or land use practices, while still allowing intensive site- and project*'
specific impact analysis.
To illustrate pertinent criteria for a particular type of project,
Stull, et al. (1987.) indicated that an appropriate CEA methodology for
multiple hydroelectric development projects should include procedures for:
(1) evaluating the combined effects of more than, one action; (2)
evaluating nonadditive, as well as additive, relationships between
projects; (3) assessing the combined indirect effect of projects on fish
5-1
-------
and wildlife populations, in addition to direct effects on the physical
environment and fish and wildlife habitats; and (4) assessing pertinent
types of effects to selected local species of fish and wildlife.
Contant and Wiggins (1993) proposed that an ideal CEA methodology
should: (1) provide for the monitoring of development activity over time
and space, as well as changes in selected environmental parameters in the
study area over time; (2)' incorporate clear and accurate models of the
responses of natural systems affected by expected development activities;
and (3) include effective environmental management systems which
facilitate the evaluation of the cumulative effects and the initiation of
appropriate management efforts. Drouin and LeBlanc (1994) suggested that
a CEA method should facilitate the identification of interactions between
the human and physical environment; enable the qualitative or quantitative
modeling of stress-response complexities for biophysical and socio-
economic indicators; and show ecological structural-functional
relationships, especially storage, linkages and feedbacks.
In addition, and while writing from the perspective of CEA practice
in New Zealand, Dixon and Montz (1995) said that CEA methods should
exhibit the following characteristics: (1) some representation of
interaction; (2) incorporation of impacts as they occur over space; (3)
incorporation of impacts as they occur over time; and (4) the ability to
trace impacts through from first-order, direct impacts to second-, third-,
and fourth-order indirect impacts.
In 1995, Smit and Spaling described six criteria which could be used
in the evaluation of potential methods for use in CEA. The criteria,
which are shown in Table 5.1, encompass how the methods address temporal
and spatial accumulation of changes, single or multiple perturbations,
processes of accumulation via various pathways, and functional and
structural changes within environmental systems.
Regarding practical methodologies for use in CEA, Damman, Cressman,
and Sadar, (1995) indicated that such methods should be: (1) -doable"
given the available environmental information, time and financial
resources; (2) based on available data and applicable impact prediction
techniques; (3) related to agency responsibilities for implementing the
findings; j4) focused, as on impacts to valued ecosystem components, to
allow for adequate attention on the most important environmental features
and processes; (5) linked to criteria for assessing the significance of
predicted cumulative effects; (6fr traceable with the ability to identify
the relationships between predicted effects' and the recommendations for
policy, mitigation, and monitoring; and (7) able to lead to conclusions
about the most cost-effective approach to impact mitigation and
monitoring.
Finally, the CEQ in the United States listed the following criteria
questions for consideration in selecting a CEA method (Council on
Environmental Quality, 1997a): ^
(1) Whether the method can be used to assesss
effects of same and different nature'
temporal change
spatial characteristics
structural/functional relationships
physical/biological/human interactions-
additive and synergistic interactions-
delayed effects
persistence of impacts
5-2
-------
Table 5.1: Six Evaluation Criteria for Types of
Method* (Smit and Spaling, 1995)
Name
TVfffvwMl Accumulation
Type of Perturbation
Functional Change
Description
ia too small for an environmental system, or system component or process, s» ««-««;i.t« or mover from
the pemnbaooa. Temporal accumulation requires that a method consider time scale and frequency of a
environmental change, and also account for time lags.
distance nquind to remove or disperse the penurbatioas. A method ihould recognize the geographic
scale of perturbations and set spatial boundaries accordingly. It ihould also account for cross-boundary
movements at the same seek (e.g., iatnregional) and movements between different scales (e.g., local to
effects are differentiated over apace. Configuration U a significant characteristic becauae aome method*
may be oriented toward a certain pattern (point, linear, area!) more than others. The ability to rnnairter
Perturbation type refers to a method's ability to account for.neraubations mat are single or multiple in
an action stimulates or propagates additional developments that trigger further sources of perturbation.
should have the ability to trace and account for specific processes of environmental change. It should
effect of each.
Functional effects refer to alterations to processes (e.g., energy flows, nutrient cycling, succession), or
method should be able to identify, analyze, and assess functional change ia aa environmental system, or
a system component or process, after penuffaation. The criterion of functional effects generally implies
time-oriented changes and includes time-crowding, time legs, and triggers and thresholds.
Structural gffocti include irafNilation ahifts haMw mtTdificstifin* f "^ aKtrstimf to gi orhyri"*! MI niir***
(e c air water soil) Analogous to functional effects a method should be able to identify, analyze,
aad assess structural change ia aa environmental system, or e system component or process, after
boundary flows, and fragmentation effects.
5-3
-------
(2) Whether the method van be used tot
quantify effects
synthesize effects
suggest-alternatives1
serve aa a planning or decision-making tool
link with othar mathod*, and
{3)v Whether the mathod las
• validated
• £lexible
• raliabla and rapaatabla.
Still additional"'criteria for CEA method! can be delineated for
apacific studiee. For example, methods may be needed-for specific types
of projects or proposed actions (e.g., grazing, fossil-fueled power
plantar or transportation ay sterna); for apacifie environmental media auch
aa air, aurface water, soil, or ground water; for specific land uaaa or
ecological areas (e.g., urban areas, upland forests, wetlands, or coastal
zones); or for specific fish or wildlife species or other biophysical or
socio-economic indicators.
COMPARATIVE REVIEWS OF EIA/CEA METHODS
Numerous methods (tools) have been utilized since 1970 to meet the
various activities required within the EIA process. The objectives of the
various activities differ, as do tha usable methods for each. For
example. Table 5.2 delineates 22 types of methods arrayed against seven
EIA typical study activities (Canter, 1997a). An "x" denotes that the
listed method type ia or may be directly useful for a given activity. The
types of methods in Table 5.2 encompass many specific techniques and
tools; the methods are listed alphabetically and not in order of
importance or usage. Differential usage of methods has also occurred
within EIA practice, and Table 5.3 summarizes the relative usage into
three categories. Methods which are simpler in terms of data and
personnel resources requirements, and in technical complexity, have been
found to be more useful. These simpler methods include analogs,
checklists, expert opinion (professional judgment), mass balance
calculations, and matrices.
Applying the EIA process in a typical impact study requires the
selection of one or more methods to meet identified study needs.
Accordingly, consideration needa to be given to certain approaches which
could be used in such a selection process. For some impact studies, the
sponsoring agency (proponent) may specify the methods to be used.
Depending upon the type of study, such methods may be dictated by
proponent best practices or by statutory requirements. At the other
extreme, and perhaps more typical of impact studies, is when the proponent
does not specify any methods for usage with the presumption being that the
professionals on the interdisciplinary team conducting the study will
utilize appropriate methods depending upon the type of project,
environmental setting, and study parameters such as time and funding. All
impact studies require some methods selection, including those studies
that have stipulations for the usage of particular methods due to
statutory requirement a. For example, it may be necessary to aelect one or
methods for impact identification related to a proposed coal-fired power
plant, but then to utilize a specified air quality dispersion model for
addressing the atmospheric dispersion of sulfur dioxide from the plant
atacka. To conclude, thia brief review of EIA methods is germane aince
5-4
-------
Table 5.2: Synopsis of Elft. Methods and Study Activities (Canter, l'997a)
T«*M at irhrtMdi la HA
AMkgi (look-«lik*») (CMS rtudtei)
OwcUUu (lio^l*, dMeripUr*. {VMtfonulnt
D*cMo*-fecim4 ckwUitt (MCDM, MAUM. DA,
•Mllnt/nlinf/naUoi. w*)«hUii|)
EavifOMMMl MM-tMWfilMMlyila
Bip*rt opbikNi QrabMlowl HIM*. Delphi, MbpUvt
.^rtarac^twua^itoultltotincHkUnc)
- a 1 1IL. In. »AL-il«.
MMMBMBl, dMUM mklll|)
| Wk«««ctaAeMon
I i.
(.•tof^M KMlnf cad *etU nod«U
LmdtMB* •ntiulio*
MBH taboM dkuUltow (tavMtoriH)
• — — — — — — —
MMitctt (rinpb, Htpp^i, crou Impact, Korio|)
MlMtollllt (kM*liM)
M«dl«ln« (B*U ttudiH of nccpton tut iiwlofi)
Nttwotb (bnpMt tnM/dulM, cwM/cfbei or
| coMHiiMetcteinim)
Ovwtay a>niyli^ xrtt OB
QwHtaitv* •mblbf. (MWMpMd)
QuMduthw •aiUllsf (MMm, teatfmtm, vhwl,
uckMalotkd, ioclo >CGao«h. urf rioMbdoa)
UA MMMMM dtbthw «e fw-lliadm Mrf pfoUblfiMk)
«c««riaMMiB(
I*""*"'*1'- ^.L^ ..U..!
(Scoplni)
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
1
D**critx 1
Affected I
Envtnxuncoi
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
I»«CI I
htdkOoo
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
lnv*d
Atttmmoi
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
DwMo* 1
Mtklj^
X
X
X
X
X
CmnmuidtMtn* of
Rente
x
1
X
*
x
X
X
-------
Table 5.3: Summary of Relative Usage of Types of Methods
in the EIA Process
Types of Methods
Analogs
Checklists
Decision-focused checklists
Environmental cost-benefit
analysis
Expert opinion
Expert systems
Indices or indicators
Laboratory testing and
scale models
Landscape evaluation
Literature reviews
Mass-balance calculations
Matrices
Monitoring (baseline)
Monitoring (analogs)
Networks
Overlay mapping via CIS
Photographs /photomontages
Qualitative modeling
Quantitative modeling
Risk assessment
Scenario building
Trend extrapolation
Relative Usage*
Selected
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Moderate
X
X
X
X
X
Widespread
X
X
X
X
X
"Selected* refers to limited usage of type of methods; such limited
usage could be due to data requirements, limited knowledge about the
method, or the fact that it is an emerging method.
"Moderate* indicates that the type of method is used for different types
of projects in different locations.
"Widespread" denotes that the type of method is widely used in a variety
of countries with EIA requirements.
5-6
-------
many of these types of method* can be used directly, or modified aa
appropriate, for usage in CEA studies.
Purposes for CEA Methods
Two main purposes can be identified for CEA methods: (1) to
facilitate the identification of cumulative effects; and (2) for usage in
the prediction of such effects. In this context, prediction refers to the
quantification of the cumulative effects, if possible. If quantitative
predictions are not achievable, qualitative {descriptive) predictions of
cumulative effects can be used. Identification methods can be useful in
scoping; establishing spatial and temporal boundaries for the study;
selecting physical-chemical, ecological or socio-economic indicators of
cumulative effects; determining what features to address in preparing a
description of environmental baseline conditions; and in communicating
study results relative to cumulative effects. Prediction methods are
fundamental to delineating actual cumulative effects and to determining
the significance of such effects in relation to thresholds and carrying
capacities. Significance determinations are the key component within the
impact assessment phase of the EIA process. The results from using these
two types of methods can be incorporated within the decision-making phase
of the EIA process. This phase may incorporate multicriteria decision-
making methods, with one of the decision factors being the cumulative
effects of the proposed action when considered in relation to other past,
present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions in the study area.
Methods for CEA
A frequent rationale used to explain the lack of attention to CEA is
the absence of appropriate methodologies. This viewpoint is probably
erroneous if consideration is given to modifying extant EIA methods and
applying them to address cumulative impact concerns. In fact, numerous
methods can be identified; for example, 16 EIA/CEA methodologies were
reviewed by Stull, et al. (1987a) regarding their usefulness for
addressing cumulative effects from hydroelectric projects on fish and
wildlife in the Columbia River Basin in the northwestern part of the
United States. Table 5.4 lists the methodologies and their potential
usefulness. Additional information on each method is available elsewhere
(Stull, et al., 1987a). Most of the methodologies can be used to address
multiple resources and multiple projects either directly or with
modification. The Snohomish guidelines, Snohomish Valley environmental
network, and the Swan River and Trinity Lakes methodologies focus on
multiple resources but have no provisions for aggregating information
across the resources. Most of the methodologies can be used to accumulate
the effects of multiple projects in some way, although the HEP, IFIM, and
Snohomish guidelines do not include specific accumulation procedures.
Linear programming and multiattribute utility analysis would require
modification to address cumulative effects from multiple projects.
Finally, the AEAM methodology is unique since it does not specify any
particular assessment procedures. Consequently, for this methodology, the
accumulation and aggregation of effects will depend on the CEA study team.
Based upon the systematic review of the 16 methodologies, Stull, et al.
(1987a) concluded that none of them was entirely adequate for assessing
the cumulative effects of hydroelectric development in the Columbia River
Basin.
In a study related to assessing cumulative biological impacts, 12
potential methods used in EIA were reviewed in relation to 11 identified
criteria (Granholm, et al., 1987). It .was determined that none of the
methods met all the criteria, although most of them were seen as useful
5-7
-------
Table 5.4: Potentially Useful Methodologies for CEA of Multiple
Hydroelectric Projects in a River Basin (after Stull, et al..
1987a)
Method
Adaptive environmental assessment and
management (AEAM) methodology
Argonne multiple matrix (AMM) methodology
Cluster impact assessment procedure (CIAP)
Habitat evaluation procedures (HEP)
Instream flow incremental methodology (IFIM)
INTASA methodology
Linear programming
Multiattribute utility analysis
Snohomish guidelines
Snohomish and Salmon River Basins methodology
Snohomish Valley environmental network
Swan River assessment methodology
Target approach
Trinity lakes assessment methodology
Water resources assessment methodology (WRAM)
Wetland functional assessment methodology
Classification*
A
/,\
X
X
X
X/l
/
B
X
X
X
ly <
c,
X
X
X
c,
X
X
X
X
X
eve loped fox
CEA and that example case studies are available; B denotes a proposed CEA
method but without published case studies; C denotes an EZA-related method
that has been used in project-level EIA (C,) or for environmental planning
(C,) — these methods could be adapted for usage for various purposes in
5-8
-------
for identifying potential cumulative effects. One deficiency was that the
reviewed methods did not identify specific roles for the proponent or
other interested parties in the CEA.
Ten types of CEA methods have been evaluated in relation to their
ability to address multiple sources of cumulative environmental change,
additive or interactive processes of accumulation, and various types of
cumulative effects (Smit and Spaling, 1995). Table 5.5 summarizes
features of the 10 types of methods, with the first six being analytical
in nature, while the last four represent general planning methods (Smit
and Spaling, 199S). The types of methods were then evaluated in relation
to the six criteria in Table 5.1. The primary conclusion of the analysis
was that there is no standard method for CEA among the variety of
analytically and planning-oriented tools examined. Rather, the types of
methods can be used for different purposes depending upon the needs of the
specific study.
Table 5.6 identifies the strengths and weaknesses of nine types of
methods which have been applied for CEA (Sadler and Verheem, 1996).
Further, Table 5.7 contains summary descriptions of seven primary methods
and four special methods which can be applied to CEA (Council on
Environmental Quality, 1997a). Careful examination of the listed methods
in Tables 5.5, 5.6, and 5.7 reveal some similarities across all three
based on the terms used in Table 5.7 (matrices, networks and system
diagrams, modeling, overlay mapping and CIS, and ecosystem analysis —
also includes landscape analysis and land suitability evaluation), or
across two based on Tables 5.5 and 5.6 (expert opinion, programming
models, and process guidelines). Unique methods include multi-attribute
tradeoff analysis (Table 5.5), and questionnaires, interviews and panels,
checklists, trends analysis, carrying capacity analysis, economic impact
analysis, and social impact analysis (Table 5.7).
Because methods can be used for several purposes in a CEA study,
consideration should be given to combining the results from the methods
for various facets of the analysis. To illustrate. Figure 5.1 displays an
approach for combining the results from several primary methods into an
overall CEA (Council on Environmental Quality, 1997a).
Summary Observations on CEA Methods
The following observations can be made on the above-noted
comparative reviews of CEA methods:
(1) The more recent reviews have tended to identified
approximately 5 to 10 types of methods; however, the included
types do not encompass all types of methods used in CEA, or
which have been used in EIA and, with modification or
adaptation, could be used in CEA.
(2) The reviews have tended to focus on CEA methods related to the
biophysical environment, with rather limited attention given
to methods related to cumulative effects on the socio-economic
environment. This more narrow perspective probably reflects
the state-of-practice of CEA, and the interests of the authors
and funding agencies for the comparative studies.
(3) The methods are typically reviewed as a group without
delineations of purpose (cumulative effects identification or
prediction — quantification), specificity (generic methods or
methods for a type of project, or natural resource, or
environmental media), category of effects (biophysical or
5-9
-------
Table 5.5: Features of Ten Type* of Methods for CEA (Smit and
Spaling, 1995)
Category'
Spatial
analysis
Network
analysis
Biogeograph
ic analysis
Interactive
matrices
Ecological
modeling
Expert
opinion
Multi-
criteria
evaluation
Programming
models
Land
suitability
evaluation
Process
guidelines
Main Feature
map spatial changes
over time
identify core
structure and
interactions of a
system
analyze structure
and function of
landscape unit
sum additive and
interactive
effects; identify
higher order
effects
model behavior of
an environmental
system or system
component
problem-solving
using professional
expertise
use of a priori
criteria to
evaluate
alternatives
optimize
alternative
objective functions
subject to
specified
constraints
use ecological
criteria to specify
location and
intensity of
potential land uses
logic framework to
conduct CEA
Mode of
Analysis
sequential
geographical
analysis
flow diagrams;
network
analysis
regional
pattern
analysis
matrix
multiplication
and
aggregation
techniques
mathematical
simulation
modeling
group process
techniques
(e.g., Delphi,
nominal group
technique )
weighing of
parameters and
computational
ranking of
scenarios
mass-balance
equations
define
acceptable
levels of
ecosystem
health and
target
thresholds
utilizing
ecological
indicators
systematic
sequence of
procedural
steps
Representative
Method(a)
Geographic
information
systems (CIS)
Loop analysis
Sorenson ' s
network
Landscape
analysis
Argonne multiple
matrix; synoptic
matrix; extended
CXM"; modified
C1AP«
Hypothetical
modeling of
forest harvesting
Cause- and-ef feet
diagramming
Multi-attribute
tradeoff analysis
Linear
programming
Land disturbance
target
Ecosystem-based
planning
Snohomish
guidelines
CEA4 decision tree
*: the first six categoric* include analytical method*; the last four are planning method*
*: CIM - cumulative impact matrix
': CIAP » cumulative impact analysis process
': CEA *• cumulative effects assessment
e_
-------
Table 5.6: Summary Comment* on Nine Methods for Addressing Cumulative
Impact* (Sadler and Verheem, 1996)
CIS: Spatial analysis with the help of digital cupping.
Strength: powerful and useful loot far carrying out apatial analysis of cumulative environmenul change; applicable to
mapping sources of cumulative mtmnmmm»m\ change and cumulative effecu, with limited application for the tnalytU of
pathways of cumulative change.
Weakneaa: data requiremenu and variation in availability of data among different localea; inability to incorporate procetaea
of accumulation.
Network analysis: e.g., 'Loop analysis;* a qualitative, network technique that i* baaed on feedback relationships.
Strength: scores positive on most criteria; recommended for analysis of cumulative effect!.
Weakness: its application in CEA remains largely ••"t**t-^
Biogeograohie analysis (e.g.. Landscape analysis): I anrtsrspn analysis emphasizes the spatial pattern of ecological
components and processes within a defined land unit, usually a watershed or other naturally bounded region. Specific
indicators that relate to suuctural and functional attributea at the landscape level are used to measure cumulative
environmental change. For example, cumulative effecu in bottom land hardwood forests: three indices for structural aapects
(forest lost, forest contiguity, forest pattern), five indices for functional aspects (change in stream discharge, change in
water residence time, trends in stream nutrient concentration, nutrient loading rates, native biotic diversity).
Strength and weaknesses: see CIS.
Interactive matrices (e.g., Argoone multiple matrix): The Argonae multiple matrix was developed to analyze the additive
and interactive effecu of various configurations of multiple projects. The total cumulative effect of any configuration ia
assumed to be the sum of project specific effecu adjusted for interactions among projecu and their effecu. Expert opinion
is used to eaublish three types of data: scores that define the level of effect of each project on selected environmental
componenu, weighting coefficienu that reflect the relative value of each component, and interaction coefficients that
measure the effect of each pair of projecu on each component. These dau aeu are entered into matrices that are
manipulated to calculate a total score indicating the cumulative effect for each project configuration.
Strength: consideration of the cumulative effect of multiple sources of environmenul change.
Weakness: cumulative effecu are not differentiated by type, and parameter values rely extensively on expert judgment.
Ecologies! modeling: (computer) modeling of ecosystems.
Strength: theoretically, method scores very positive on a number of criteria.
Weakness: application is dependent on reliable data, model validation and resources (time, money, expertise); models
usually analyze the effect of multiple sources on only one environmental component; only applicable to environmental
systems for which the system organization and behavior are reasonably well understood.
Expert opinion: Use of experts (e.g., in 'cause and effect diagramming* in flow diagrams).
Strength: provides an organizing framework for more empirical analyses.
Weakness: scores negative on a number of CEA criteria.
i (e.g.. Linear programming): Linear programming ia a tool that identifies resource allocations
(solutions) which are feasible given specified environmental and other conditions (constraints), and then selecu some
'optional* allocation baaed on a specified decision rule (objective function).
Strength: offers a potential planning approach to investigate and manage cumulative environmental problems.
Weakness: application ia CEA would be a novel departure from typical sociocconomic applications.
5-11
-------
Table 5.6 (continued):
M41VMJ
*-«^ * •tt,- *fl^ a*
OK OM •UCtJ|MMt^^ OT IBQKi IB
I pabfic** Md vaifabapcan an nhcveai put of
and tppfieatioa of man ago
•idmi wbicfc to cmjr oitt •
5-12
-------
Table 5.7: Primary and Special Method* for Analyzing Cumulative Effects
(Council on Environmental Quality, 1997a)
Primary Method*
1 OuettiofUttim
Interviews, and PaoeU
2rn,»-L.|:^«
3. Matrices
4. Network* and
5. Modeling
. Trends Analysts
Deec notion
QueauonatirM, uBtrvim, and p»«*i« •«
uMftd for ftfhcrinf te wide nnf« of
infbnnttiioa oa multiple actions and leaouices
needed to address cumulative effects.
building activities can help identify the
important cunwUtive effecu iuuei in the
ICJflOn.
a>««bi;.t. k.U. L4.,*;fi>
-------
Table 5.7 (continued):
Primary and Special Method*
Descfipuoo
Strength!
Weaknesses
7. Overlay Mapping and OB
Overlay rapping tad
fMfnphic information
systems (OB) incorporate*
locstional mrannauoB into
.cumulative effects analysis and
help set the boundaries of the
analyna, ualyxc landscape
panraeten, and identify area*
where effect* will be the
greatest. Map overlay* can be
bated oa cither the
•Additsae* spatial pattern and
proximiry of effect*
•Efbetive viiual preaeotaiioa
•Cefl if|rtiipiy* development
•Limited to efleet* baaed on
locatioo
•Do not explicitly addrea*
indirect effect*
•Difficult to addreu
manunide of effect*
certain area* or oa the
suitability of each land unit for
8. Carrying Capacity Analysis
Carrying capacity analyst*
identifies threshold* (as
constnunta on development)
and provides mcchiniiiiii to
monitor the incremental use of
unused capacity. Carrying
capacity in the ecological
context is defined as the
threshold of suets below
which populations and
ecosystem function* can be
sustained. In the social
context, the carrying capacity
of a region is measured by die
level of services (including
ecological service*) desired by
the populace.
•True measure of cumulative
effect* against threshold
•Addresses impact in system
context
•Addresses time nctors
•Rarely can measure capacity
•May be multiple thresholds
•Requisite regional data are
often absent
9. Ecosystem Analysis
Ecosystem analysis expficitiy
addresses biodiversity and
ecosystem sustainabOity. The
ecosystem approach uses
natural boundaries (such at
watersheds and ecoregions)
and applies new ecological
indicators (such as indices of
biotk integrity and landscape
patten). Ecosystem emr/M
entails the broad regional
petayactiva and holistic
thinking that are required for
anejyeia.
•Uses regional scale and full
range of components and
•Addresses space and time
•Addresses ecosystem
susoinebility
•Limited to aatunl syttcmi
•Often require* ipecie*
•tttrogstes for lyBtein
•Data imeiwve
•Ljuidtctpc indicstors still
under dcvdopmeot
5-14
-------
Table 5.7: (continued):
Special Methods
Description
Strengths
Weakneiaet
10. Economic Impact Analyst*
Economic impact analysis is an
analyzing cumulative effect*,
because the economic well-
being of * local community
depend* on many different
action*. The three primary
step* in conducting an
economic impact analysis are
(1) —"Mittiiny the region of
influence. (2) mndrling the
economic impart*, and (3)
determintnf the significance of
the impacti. Economic model*
play an important role in these
impact assessments and range
from simple to aophicticated.
•Addreaaea economic iuuei
•Model* provide definitive,
quantised reaulu
• Utility and accuracy of
reaulu dependent on data
quality and model
aacumption*
•Unially do not addrea*
nonmtrkel value*
11. Social impact Analyai*
Social impact analysis
addresses cumulative effect*
related to the sustainability of
human communitiei by (1)
focusing on key social
variable* such a* population
characteristic*, community and
institutional structures,
political and social resource*,
individual and family changea,
and community resources; and
(2) projecting future effect*
using social analysis techniques
such a* linear trend
projections, population
multiplier method*, icenarioa,
expert testimony, and
simulation modeling.
•Addresses social issues
•Model* provide definitive,
quantified result*
• Utility and accuracy of
result* dependent on data
quality and model
assumption*
•Socisl values are highly
variable
5-15
-------
IDENTIFY RANGE
OF RESOURCES
QuMdaniuirtt.
IRUfVl9Mf§« 4MB
SPATIAL
SCOPING
Ovwter Moping
•id OSS
\ /
RESOURCE AND
IMPACT
INTERACTIONS
Networks end
Sytuma Otegranu
Figure 5.1:
Conceptual Model for Combining Primary Methods in a CEA
(Council on Environmental Quality, 1997a)
5-16
-------
socio-economic), or indications of focus (guidelines for CEA
process or methods for usage within the process). Such
delineations would aid in the development of appropriate
comparisons between methods.
(4) The reviewed methods are often listed without examples of
their application in CEA studies. Thus it may not be possible
to judge between actual versus potential applications of the
methods.
(5) As is the case for EZA methods, there is no single CEA method
that meets all of the desirable criteria for such methods, nor
can a CEA study depend on one method for meeting all study
needs. Accordingly, a CEA study should typically involve the
use of several types of methods for different purposes. Based
on the assumption that selection of methods, either formally
or informally, is a component of every CEA study, the question
then becomes targeted on what approaches might be used to
accomplish such selections. Examples include: (1) an approach
based upon professional judgment only; (2) an approach based
upon systematic but qualitative comparisons of different
methods for usage for different purposes; and (3) an approach
involving quantitative comparisons of different methods
arrayed against a series of weighted decision criteria
(factors).
EXAMPLES OF CEA METHODS
Methodologies which have actually been used in CEA include
checklists, matrices, nodal networks or pathways, qualitative dynamic
models to simulate ecosystem response, cartographic (or mapping)
techniques, and adaptive or ad hoc methods which combine several types of
methods (Vestal, et al., 1995). Other types of methods include spatial
analysis, ecological modeling, monitoring, and expert opinion (Barrow,
1997). Accordingly, this listing is mainly focused on methodologies for
identifying cumulative effects. Further, dynamic models can be
qualitative (or descriptive) or quantitative in focus, with the latter
type useful for quantifying potential cumulative effects.
One type of method which has been used for over 25 years in EIA
practice is the "questionnaire checklist." Such checklists generally
include upwards of 100 questions focused upon categorized impacts; i.e.,
the user answers questions (by yes, no, or need more information) which
are generally formatted in terms of "does the proposed action have the
potential for causing an impact on environmental factor (or resource) 1,2
etc.?* Specific questionnaire checklists have been developed by project
type (e.g., hydroelectric), by topical issue (e.g., human health impacts,)
and/or by agency .responsibility (e.g., U.S. Department of Energy).
Traditional EIA-related questionnaire checklists typically focus on the
impacts of the proposed action. Questionnaire checklists for CEA would
need to broaden the issues addressed to encompass impacts associated with
the operable cumulative effects definition.
An example of broadened CEA-related checklist containing about 100
questions organized into 21 categories is included in Canter and Kamath
(1995). The 21 topical categories include physical components (landform,
air/climatology, water, solid waste, noise, and hazardous waste),
biological components (flora and fauna), and socioeconomic components
(land use, recreation, aesthetics, archaeological sites, health and
safety, cultural patterns, local services, public utilities, population,
economic factors, transportation, natural resources, and energy). The
5-17
-------
user first answers questions regarding the impacts of the proposed action
on specific features of the categories; for example, the features within
air/climatology include air quality changes due to gases, particulates,
and fugitive dusty exceedance of -emission standards; objectional odors;
climate variations due to changes in humidity, air movement, or
temperature; emissions of hazardous air pollutants; and acid rain. The
same series of questions are then considered regarding the cumulative
effects of the proposed action and past, present, and reasonable
foreseeable actions.
Questionnaire checklists can be useful during the scoping process to
identify cumulative effects of concern. The impact study team discussion
can become more focused on the key cumulative effects and for documenting
how they were selected for subsequent technical analyses. As such CEA
checklists become more refined and standardized, they will provide a valid
tool (method) which can be used to consistently identify anticipated
cumulative effects. Further, they can be easily adapted to meet the
cumulative effects identification needs of a particular EIA study. Such
checklists can also be incorporated into personal computers to facilitate
ease of usage, thus providing the basis for the future development of more
sophisticated expert systems. Because questionnaire checklists are
directed to impact identification, other methods would be needed to
quantify cumulative effects, to incorporate their consideration in trade-
off analyses of alternatives, and to develop appropriate mitigation
measures (Canter, 1997).
Table 5.8 displays a simple interaction matrix depicting the fish
and wildlife effects of small hydropower projects (less than 10 MW) in the
Columbia River Basin in the USA along with similar effects which can occur
from nonhydropower activities in the Basin (Stull, et al., 1987a).
Watershed-based approaches for environmental planning and management
have been increasing in the United States. Accordingly, such geographical
areas can be useful in establishing CEA spatial boundaries relative to
changes in surface water quantity and quality. Illustrations of some
types of cumulative effects, from a watershed perspective, are shown in
Figure 5.2 (Reid, 1993). The displayed typology can be useful in
identifying cumulative effects from multiple activities within a
watershed. The simple interaction matrices in Tables 5.9 and 5.10 display
direct effects of activities on watershed properties, and in turn, on
watershed processes, respectively (Reid, 1993). These tables can be
useful in scoping and the identification of potential cumulative
biophysical effects. The implications of process changes on aquatic
ecosystems are not displayed in Table 5.10.
The concept of a stepped matrix which was used in a CEA study of
open cut mining of black coal in Australia is in Figure 5.3 (Court,
Wright, and Guthrie, 1994). The "activities" include multiple projects,
or the multiple parts of a single project, which can cause cumulative
effects. In this specific case, the activities included fuel burning and
metal smelting, irrigated grape vineyards, transport, and coal mining.
Environmental indicators for the study area included fine particles,
sulfur dioxide, overburden chemical composition, and agricultural
chemicals; and the valued environmental components included air quality
health criteria, irrigation-quality water, species diversity, and visual
—mity.
A cause-effect network for identifying the cumulative effects of
coastal zone development projects in Australia is in Figure 5.4 (Court,
Wright, and Guthrie, 1994). This network displays relationships between
causes of environmental change, resultant perturbations, and primary and
secondary impacts.
5-18
-------
Table 5.8: Effects of Hydropower on Fish and Wildlife that Also Occur from Other Activities
in the Columbia River Basin (Stull, et a!., 1987a).
V
M
VO
Hydropower Effect*
FISHERIES
Sedimentation and Erosion
Diiturbtnce of Hazardous Wast* Sinks
InUrference with Kih Migration
Allend Stream Flow
Ditniplkm of Food Production and
Treiuport
Inundation of Stream Habilau
Fiahini Area, Opportunity, and Catch
Chanfet in Water Quality
Overharvest of Wild Slocka in a Mixed-
Stock Fiahery
Nonhydropower Acliviliei
Agricultural
Fiahery
Mining
Recreational
Residential/
Industrial
Road
Construction
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
WILDUFB
l Increased Human Acceat and
Disturbance
Reduction of Aquatic Prey
Lou of Critical Temilrial Wildlife
Habitata
Lou of Stream Hibitala and Creation
of Open-Water Habitita
Interruption of Movement and
Bird Mortality at Transmission tinea
Degradation of Shoreline Habitala
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Timber
Harvest
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Waste
Disposal
Water
Supply
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
-------
* • AB- "•"• ,55
* * W V /
] i 1 -i-
* 5 J j T T
Z Z
A • mt MB^
"* T/ 7
A • AC
i i * * _ m
V* 'IiJz!'
Note: A and B are activities, Y is an environmental parameter, and Z is an
impact.
Figure 5.2: Combinations of Activities that Can Cause Cumulative Effects
in Watersheds (Reid, 1993)
5-20
-------
Table 5.9; Potential Direct Effect* of Selected Land-Use Activitii
on Watershed Properties (Reid, 1993)
Auxiliary Vege- Topo- Qtem-
oe anon Soil gnphy ieals Other
Activity BCZLRV COP OS CFMNS INR FHPW
Construction . ..LR. C.P OS CFMNS I.R F...
•-C..R. COP .. CF.N. I.- F..W
.C..R. CD. .. CFMN. —
.C.L.. C.. .S CFMN. I.. ..P.
B C.P OS ..M.. INR F.P.
CDP .S ..M.. ..R FH..
.CZLR. .D. N. I.. F.PW
*••••• ••• •• *•••• i • » • • • n
.C. .R. CDP DS C.MN. I.R F...
Planting and regenenooii B.. •. V . • • .. •.... ... •••*
InBtt and bcush coonol £•*••• C» • • • »•••• X • • r. <*
Foe control BC..R. CDP .. ..M.. ... ....
Range use - grazing B.Z.RV COP .5 ' C.M.. .N. F.PW
Mining
Open pit mining .C..R. C.P D. CFMNS I.R F...
• * j^_——^ - _j -—*—!—— PR Ft
Placer gold and gnvel .C.LR. COP D. CFMNS I.R F...
Tailings storage ....R. COP OS CFMNS I.. F...
IninG tBClamaOQQ .... **V ... . 5" * WfTSM. ... ....
Agncnltiifc
Tillage and oopping . ...RV .D. .S ..MN. ..R F.P.
IniHBtiflB *. ZLR. ... .. ...N. Z*. ...Vf
1rttf*-t *nlt atff^ ^^H|i>j B. . . . . C.. .S . .M. . I.. F.P.
UifauiizttioQ and puwci
Habitation .CZLR. ..P .5 ..M.. IN. FHPW
Industry .CZLR. ..P .S . .MN. I.. .H.W
Power plants .CZLR. ... .. I*. .H.W
Rficmnon ind fishing
ORVs R. C.. .S C.MN. I.. ....
^^jj]g .C.... C*. *S C.MN. * *. . * * •
Cunping *C« .R. C>. *S C*M». ZN* .*P*
p«hing Mirf hiimin| ... .R. ... *. ..... I.. F...
AnzflUiras* Soflf Chrmifsdt
B Boning D Disruption of horiions I Non-nutrient chemical input
C Constructioo S Altered soil structure N Introduction of mnricms
R Road use/maimenance C Channel/bank morphology Other
V VcgcttOOQ ooDvccnoQ r Finplafcinf ni of nil f
M Altered inkrotopognpny H terodnction of hett
Tuilitlmi N Altered channel network P lmroducaonofpMhugt.ni
C Geasnoaitycoiiipaiiiiaa S Oventeepening of slope* W Impootenovml of water
D Disturoaooc fireojoency
P Pattern of c
5-21
-------
Tabl* «> in. Bff«ct« of Alt«r«d Bnviromnwital V*r»a*t*rm on W»tersh»d
=>"LO* Proce.0«B (Raid, 1993)
PZEMBCr AHOY ADHRCBY ABCBY AH
C Abend community competition P.E.H.. .HC.. A.H..B. A.... AH
D AtonidJUutfaiuccftrqurncy ....... .H... A....B.
F Alteredp»otn>ofiimiiimflitm ....... ..... .......
Sato
D PlffPpy^** ImgiiaME ....... A...« .......
S AJtBBd nfl 1UUL1U16 .X....« .H.. • .......
Topofnpay
C Abendcband/bnfcBapholop C. ..C.. ....C .W
F Empacancnoffin A..B
•A AflBBB BIOQCOpOflSpBy • •»•«• * *A» • * • •**• ••• ••••• »•
N AbCRO CfaUDBl OCCVOaC • * • • »C» • «C« * • • • «C« * *•*•* «lf
S OvCfABBpBBfflf Of UOpO • * • *H* • *H* • • • •***»• * •**•• ••
• • - _ _M _^^^__— i • « • m
M i.-i--L_i:.niinf .mipiam* ....... A..B.
Rf| ill —^^B^^^^^^A «^«^^B^^kS^M &
HBDyVV QC UIIU1CBD UBUCKBBKB •••»**• ••••* A* ••••» •••••
OtDCTCfllBCti
Ft«^__^^K^u^.^ ~^ ^^^^^««^i akX f«^B^ nr* &
tSODODCDQa OF RXDOVU«UBDC .*..... .flu. • A. *•••• ••••* • *
H |^ lLLJ»itfMi f^t^^t .. •*•• •*•** AH
P IpUUdUCTlOB Of pBIDOyBM •»*••*• ••••• ••*•••• ••*»• •*
W IfflpoctoriBiovilofWHET P.• *«CY •*•»• •••*••• •••fl* *W
P Prorfnctioo process A AmoomnddancttroalaQs A Air
I fr*a*^tw» o DeayrKcoahflblopa W W*
M Soil ooimBe R Decay rue in
H riiiltVT* li3"*ll>|lBi'*1 C TkutfponiB
C ^••**M liyaiiy «ph g AlffiT"** ***** "**B*f lp* **
Y Annual wuer yield Y VobiDetDdciancmcjc
C^«!M^^**
tfcflllllBMU
A Alimilit IBfl CIMKBTt'OO fault A
H Hfflfiforico process tad MM B
f* f*ti»nnrl »*r*ntw» imw^** mtut •*§• ^ TVvflMfWWfffl
V C^tf4M*^iHtf ifMJfl •••4 fhcr^f+ff ^P VtfJaMf^B •«w4
5-22
-------
Valued environmental
Activities
P
q
r
environmental
indicators
b
c
d
Biivvunmenuu
indicators
• bed
pairs activities with
measured changes
considers
interactions with a
focus on potential
synergistic,
wwi i ^jwui tun ly,
accumulation and
dispersal processes
UMI^UIIVIUB
j k 1 m
relates changes in
valued components
back to activities
pairs changes with
valued environmental
components
Activates
P
q
r
a
environmental
bxficBtora
b
e
d
a b o d
j k I m
Figure 5.3:
Concept of Stepped Matrix Used for Open Cut Mining of Black
Coal in Australia (Court, Wright, and Guthria, 1994)
5-23
-------
CAUSE
PERTURBATION
PRIMARY IMPACT
SECONDARY IMPACT
TMMH
MNCUL1UML UW MJBM1MN
Figure 5.4: Cauee-Bffect Network for Development Project* in the Coital Zone of Australia (Court,
Wright, and Outhrie, 1994)
-------
Finally, modifications of EIA method* have been used in CEA; for
example, via matrix methods, causal analysis, and adaptive management
(Sonntag, et al., 1987). Matrix methods have been developed to
incorporate effects ratings and factor importance in a manner to
facilitate the calculation of cumulative effects as the sum of all
project-specific effects adjusted for interactions among projects in the
study area. Causal analysis involves a "backstop analysis* wherein
cumulative effects are traced back to specific activities and then
reconfigured into a cause-effect network. Such networks can provide the
basis for the development of effects hypotheses and appropriate
quantitative models. The adaptive environmental assessment and management
(AEAM) method was developed for EIA, and with the use of focused workshops
and simulation modeling, the concepts can be extended to CEA.
SELECTION APPROACHES FOR CEA METHODS
A typical impact study requires the selection of one or more methods
to meet identified study needs. Accordingly, consideration needs to be
given to certain approaches which could be used in such a selection
process. For some impact studies, the sponsoring agency (proponent) may
specify the methods to be used. Depending upon the type of study, such
methods may be dictated by proponent best practices or by statutory
requirements. At the other extreme, and perhaps more typical of impact
studies, is when the proponent does not specify any methods for usage with
the presumption being that the professionals on the interdisciplinary team
conducting the study will utilize appropriate methods depending upon the
type of project, environmental setting, and study parameters such as time
and funding. All impact studies require some methods selection, including
those studies that have stipulations for the usage of particular methods
due to statutory requirements. For example, it may be necessary to select
one or methods for impact identification related to a proposed coal-fired
power plant, but then to utilize a specified air quality dispersion model
for addressing the atmospheric dispersion of sulfur dioxide from the plant
stacks.
Based on the assumption that selection of methods, either formally
or informally, is a component of every impact study, the question then
becomes targeted on what approaches might be used to accomplish such
selections. Three such approaches are considered herein: (1) an approach
based upon professional judgment only; (2) an approach based upon
systematic but qualitative comparisons of different methods for usage for
different purposes; and (3) an approach involving quantitative comparisons
of different methods arrayed against a series of weighted decision
criteria (factors).
Dae of Professional Judgment Approach
Method selection based upon professional judgment is actually
involved in all three approaches, with the distinction in this first
approach being that methods are chosen based upon the professional
knowledge and judgment of individuals on an interdisciplinary study team,
or the collective judgment of the study team as a whole, regarding
comparative features of available methods and their usage in the pertinent
impact study. In this regard, specific decision criteria for comparing
methods may not be delineated, with choices probably being related to the
familiarity and possible previous usage of methods by individuals on the
team. It is important to note that professional judgment can relate to
both substantive issues addressed by individual methods as well as their
comparative ease of usage in terms of required data, time considerations,
and budgetary limitations.
5-25
-------
Ose of Qualitative Comparison Approach
Whan methods are selected based on qualitative comparisons, these
selections are typically made based on identifying decision criteria (or
desirable attributes) and then comparing candidate methods, possibly on a
relative basis, in conjunction with each of the listed criteria (or
attributes). Several examples for this selection approach have been
published, with the typical process involving:
(1) the identification of decision criteria (desirable attributes)
for methods;
(2) the qualitative comparison of candidate methods relative to
the desirable attributes; and
(3) the selection of the "best choice" for the situation based on
the information in (2) coupled with professional judgment.
Four examples of desirable attributes (or decision criteria) will be
cited; one is related to decision-focused checklists, one to methods in
general, and the latter two to impact prediction methods. Multi-criteria
decision-making methods, or decision-focused checklists, have been
referred to as amalgamation methods by Hobba. (1985). Such amalgamation
involves combining disparate impacts so that alternatives can be ranked.
Hobbs (1985) suggested four criteria for consideration in choosing an
amalgamation method; these criteria were: (1) the purpose to be served,
(2) the ease of use (time, money, necessary computer resources, etc.),
(3) the validity of the method, and (4) the anticipated results when
compared to other methods.
Nichols and Hyraan (1982) identified seven criteria for evaluating
EIA methods in general, and Table 5.11 summarizes these criteria. The
first three reflect the complex attributes of real environmental responses
to natural or man-induced changes. The remaining four represent the
preferable attributes of a planning and decision-making process.
Decision factors related to the selection of impact prediction
methods were enumerated by Environmental Resources, Ltd. (1982) following
an extensive review of such methods. Key decision factors expressed in
the form of questions are included in Table 5.12 (after Environmental
Resources, Ltd., 1982).
A second example of decision criteria for impact prediction methods
includes eight criteria as shown in Table 5.13. These criteria include
both practical and technical considerations. On the practical side, the
method must first be credible, including: (1) substantive relevancy to the
proposed action; (2) policy relevancy in terms of providing useful
actionable information; (3) acceptability to affected publics; and (4)
face validity to relevant experts or professionals. If the method is
credible, additional desirable characteristics include how easily it can
be used (applicability) and whether it can be used for different
conditions and geographic areas (flexibility). Technical criteria include
both accuracy and completeness. Methods should be able to provide results
within acceptable error ranges, and they should provide a relatively
comprehensive picture of impacts.
Impact prediction methods which could be compared relative to the
questions in Tables 5.12 or 5.13 could be "off-the shelf- methods, or they
could require modification to meet the particular impact study needs.
Depending upon the particular needs, it may be necessary to develop
5-26
-------
Table 5.11: Criteria for Evaluating EIA Methodologies
(Nichols and Hyman, 1982)
1. Assessment methods should recognize the probabilistic nature of
effects. Environmental cause-effect chains are rarely deterministic
because of many random factors and uncertain links between
conditional human activities and states of nature.
2. Cumulative and indirect effects are important, although there are
obviously limits on the extent to which they can be considered.
Natural systems are highly interrelated, and a series of minor
actions may have significant cumulative impact. Indirect effects
may be cyclical due to positive or negative feedback.
3. A good methodology should reflect dynamic environmental effects
through a capacity to distinguish between short-term and long-term
effects. Impacts may vary over time in direction, magnitude, or
rates of change. The larger system itself may be in ecological or
social flux, and decisionmakers have time horizons of varying
lengths.
4. Decision making necessarily encompasses multiple objectives (or
multiple values). Assessment methods should include the diverse
elements of environmental quality: maintenance of ecosystems and
resource productivity; human health and safety; amenities and
aesthetics; and historical and cultural resources. Environmental
values can be divided into three types: social norms, functional
values (environmental services, e.g., fisheries), and individual
preferences. In addition, a good assessment method should recognize.
other societal objectives, such as economic efficiency, equity to
individuals and regions, and social well-being.
5. Environmental assessment necessarily involves both facts and values.
Values enter the process when deciding which effects to examine,
whether an effect is good or bad, and how important it is relative
to other effects. Methods should separate facts and values to the
extent possible, and identify explicitly the source of values.
Where the influence of values is obscure, the analysis itself may
become a source of conflict. Under optimal conditions, results
should be amenable to a sensitivity analysis where alternative value
judgments are applied to a set of factors.
6. It is also important to consider whose values enter the analysis.
Assessment techniques should encourage a participatory approach to
incorporate the multiplicity of values provided by the public as
well as by experts from varying disciplines and interest groups.
Lack of participation by key actors can mitigate the usefulness of
assessment results.
7. With all other things held constant, the best decision process is
efficient in its requirements for time, money, and skilled labor.
Increased complexity is justified only when there is a sufficient
increase in the validity and decision-making utility of the
analytical results.
5-27
-------
Table 5.12: Questions Related to Evaluating and Selecting Impact
Prediction Methods (after Environmental Resources, Ltd., 1982)
(1) Can the method be used to produce the information needed? If
not, can it be adapted to produce this information?
(2) Can the method be applied to the particular activity and
environment under study (i.e., to the alternative activities
and environments which must be compared)? Are the limitations
of the method, and the assumptions made, applicable to the
circumstances of the proposed alternatives and the affected
environments?
(3) Are the data needed to use the method available? If not, can
they be collected using the available resources of time,
manpower, equipment, etc.?
(4) Are the resources available to use the method - computing
time, laboratory work, field studies, expertise, etc.?
(5) Are the outputs from the method in a suitable form to serve as
inputs into predictions of higher order effects if necessary?
(6) Can the outputs from the method be presented in a form which
is understandable and useful for the decision maker and other
users? What will be the costs of analyzing and interpreting
the results for the end users?
(7) Can the method be satisfactorily explained to the non-
specialist so that he/she can understand its use, and does it
generate information in a form comprehensible to a broad range
of people with different backgrounds?
(8) Does the method provide a sufficiently accurate or reliable
prediction of the effect? What is the level of uncertainty
associated with the prediction?
(9) If the method was repeated using the same data base would a
second group obtain the same result as the first group?
5-28
-------
Table 5.13: Criteria for Choosing Impact Prediction Methods
Criteria
Definition
I. Practicality
1. Substantive relevancy
2. Policy relevancy
3. Acceptability
4. Face validity
5. Applicability
6. Flexibility
II. Technical Quality
7. Accuracy
8. Completeness
Appropriateness for the proposed action.
Previous use to assess impacts of similar
proposed actions is one indicator of
relevancy.
Does the method provide information which
can be useful, particularly with respect to
avoiding or mitigating impacts? Methods
would need to address actionable impact
categories, be capable of producing timely
predictions, etc.
Is the method acceptable to relevant
publics likely to be impacted? Does it
include the substantive areas of concern to
local populations? These areas of concern
can be determined by previous experience,
public hearings, or survey techniques.
Is the method credible in the professional
research community or with others having
experience in assessing similar types of
impacts? This can be determined by the use
of advisory groups or external review
panels.
Ease of using or implementing this method.
Do the data exist; are analysis routines
easy to use, etc.? Must be determined by
professional judgment.
Can the method be used for different
substantive impact areas, for different
geographic areas, different environmental
conditions, etc.?
Is the method likely to provide results
within acceptable error ranges? Has it
been subject to previous reliability and
validity studies? Has it generated
significant problems in previous uses?
Does the method include a complete set of
impacts? Can it be easily combined with
other approaches to provide a comprehensive
picture?
5-29
-------
specific model* or methods for impact prediction. The time and associated
costs for modification or development should be considered in the
selection process.
Finally, the following points related to selecting impact prediction
methods using a qualitative comparison approach should be remembered
(Environmental Resources, Ltd., 1982):
(1) The selection of appropriate methods for use in EIA is always
a balance between the need for information and the
availability of resources; to obtain a more accurate and
complete description of an effect always requires the
expenditure of more resources.
(2) The selection of methods for obtaining information about
environmental effects involves:
• identifying methods which can provide the types of
information needed;
• and examining whether they are applicable to the
particular activity and environment in question, and
with the resources available for the impact study.
(3) Many methods can be used at varying levels of sophistication.
Their applicability in different circumstances and their
resource requirements will vary accordingly, with a
corresponding variation in the quality of information
obtained.
(4) Where limited resources are available, decisions have to be
made about information needs for different effects, and
therefore about the allocation of these resources between the
different effects.
(5) Each specialist will have his own "favorite" method for
solving a problem, which is only natural for him/her to
advocate. The overall impact study group (interdisciplinary
team) needs to maintain a wider view of the needs and
possibilities and thus advise the specialist accordingly.
(6) Occasionally a method specifically designed for the study area
(but for some other purpose) is available for use, already
calibrated and validated; if it can be adapted to serve the
impact study needs it may provide an extensive predictive
capacity with small use of resources.
(7) In certain cases only one method is available to predict a
particular type of effect for a particular type of
environment; information needs must then be conditioned to
match the possible outputs from that method. But the problem
should not be redefined solely to suit the method.
(8) Often there may be no one method which is suitable; the
results of several may then be combined together to give the
fullest possible picture of the environmental effect.
Additional methods may also be used to test the results of a
first method.
(9) The choice of methods is not immutable; adaption, evolution
and shifting of approaches can be expected as an impact study
proceeds and understanding is improved.
5-30
-------
Use of Unranked Pairwi«e Comparison Approach
The most comprehensive approach relative to selecting methods would
involve utilizing a systematic comparison of methods relative to pre-
selected decision criteria (factors), with consideration given to the
relative importance of the decision criteria and to the comparative
features of each method in conjunction with the stated criteria. In this
regard, such approaches are analogous to multiple criteria decision making
which has been used for comparison of alternatives in environmental impact
studies. To illustrate the pragmatic nature of this approach for such
decision making, the following steps can be identified:
(1) The first step would involve specifying the particular phase
of the impact study for which a method should be selected, and
then identifying key decision factors or desirable attributes
which should be considered in selecting the method.
(2) Consideration should then be given to the relative importance
of the decision factors and to the usage of importance
weighting to indicate the differential importance of the
decision factors in selecting the method.
(3) Each candidate method should be compared on some type of
relative basis in association with each decision factor. The
information related to each decision factor could be either
qualitative or quantitative, with the resulting comparisons of
the candidate methods being an approach which would reduce the
information to a common perspective or common scale.
(4) A final decision matrix can be developed, using a mathematical
approach, by multiplying the importance weight of each
decision factor times the numerical score of each candidate
method for the individual factor. When these are summed
across the candidate method, the following selection score
would result:
Score, - £ (FXC), <*«?)„
where
Score) » composite selection score for the jth candidate method
n « number of decision factors
(FIC), « importance coefficient of the ith decision factor
(RCC), » relative choice coefficient of the ith decision factor
for the jth candidate method
To illustrate this approach, an unranked pairwise comparison
technique will be utilized to indicate how it could be applied in
selecting a method for accomplishing a particular need within an impact
study.
The first step in using the unranked pairwise comparison technique
is to list the decision factors (criteria) and assemble information on
each considered method relative to each factor. Table 5.14 shows the
results for this illustration. The decision factors in Table 5.14 can be
prioritized based on their relative importance. This is called importance
5-31
-------
Table 5.14: Example Information for Selecting an EIA Method
Decision
Factor
Acceptability
by EIA
regulators
Data
requirements
for use of
method
Uncertainty
related to
method
Dummy
Candidate EIA Methods
A
Acceptable
Moderate
Some
uncertainty
-
B
Not
acceptable
without
modification
Minimal
Some
uncertainty
-
C
Some effort
required to
gain
acceptability
Moderate
Minimal
uncertainty
-•
D (dummy)
Not
acceptable
Extensive
High
uncertainty
-
5-32
-------
weighting; it consists of considering each decision factor relative to
every other factor, and assigning to the one considered to be the most
important of the pair a value of 1, and to the lesser important of the
pair a value of 0. This unranked paired-comparison technique, which is
shown in Table 5.15, does not mean that the factor assigned a 0 in each
pair has no importance; it simply means that relative to the pair, the
factor is least important. In addition to the basic decision factors, a
dummy factor is included so as to preclude the net assignment of a value
of 0 to any one basic factor in the process. The dummy factor is defined
as the least important in every comparison. If two factors are considered
to be of the same importance (one is not more important than the other),
a value of 0.5 can be assigned to each factor in the pair.
Following assignment of the relative weights as shown in Table 5.15,
with this process only being completed following several iterations to be
sure that each factor is considered in a consistent manner to each other
factor, the individual weight assignments are summed, with the factor
importance coefficient (FIC) being equal to the sum value for an
individual factor divided by the sum for all factors. The total the FIC
column should equal 1.00. The total of the sum column should equal to (N)
(N-l)/2, where N is the number of factors included in the assignment of
weights. In this example, four factors were included, hence the sum total
should be 6.0. The assignment of importance weights can be done by an
individual, or by a group of both technical and non-technical persons who
are charged with the responsibility of identifying the most appropriate
EIA method for a given need. The FIC column in Table 5.15 indicates that
acceptability by EIA regulators is the most important followed by, in
order, data requirements and uncertainty.
The next step in the decision process involves comparing each
candidate method relative to each decision factor. Comparisons can be
based on quantitative, qualitative, or relative information. Examples of
qualitative information are included in Table 5.14. The systematic
comparison of methods involves their prioritization relative to each
decision factor. Table 5.16 illustrates the comparison of the methods
relative to the first decision factor. Each method is compared to every
other method through the use of a paired comparison approach. The basic
decision for each pair of methods is to decide which one is best relative
to that decision factor. For the method considered to be the best a value
of 1 is assigned; to the method considered to be the least desirable of
the pair a 0 is assigned. It should be noted that a dummy method is
included in Table 5.16 to preclude the net assignment of a value of zero
to any basic method relative to the decision factor. If two methods are
the same relative to their desirability in terms of a decision factor, a
value of 0.5 can be assigned to each method. Following assignment of
desirability numbers to each method, the individual assignments are
summed, with the relative choice coefficient (RCC) being equal to the sum
value for an individual method divided by the sum for all the methods.
The total for the RCC column should equal to 1.00. The total of the sum
column should equal to (M) (M-l)/2, where M is the number of methods
included in the analysis. In this example four methods were included,
hence the sum total should be equal to 6.0. Tables 5.17 and 5.18 display
the RCC values for the other decision factors in the illustration.
The final step in the use of the unranked paired-comparison
decision-making technique involves the development of a decision matrix.
This matrix is derived by multiplying each FIC by each RCC. Summation of
the products for each alternative will yield numerical scores which can be
used in the final selection. Table 5.19 illustrates the decision matrix
based on the illustration. Method A would represent the optimal choice
based on this decision-making approach.. One numerical check in the
5-33
-------
Table 5.15; Importance* Weighting of Decision Factors
Decision Factor
Acceptability by
EIA regulators
Data requirements
for use of method
Uncertainty
related to method
Dummy
Relative
Importance
Assignments
111
0 11
00 1
000
Totals
Sum
3
2
1
0
6.0
FIC
0.50
0.33 .
0.17
0
1.00
5-34
-------
Table 5.16: Relative Choice Coefficients of Candidate Methods
for "Acceptability by EIA Regulators" Factor
Candidate Method
A
B
C
D (dummy)
Choice
Assignments
111
0 01
01 1
000
Total*
Sum
3
1
2
0
6.0
RCC
0.50
0.17
0.33
0
1.00
5-35
-------
Table 5.17:
Relative Choice Coefficients of Candidate Methodi
for "Data Requirements for Use of Method" Factor
Candidate Method
A
B
C
D (dummy)
Choice Assignments
0 0.5 1
1 11
0.5 0 1
0 00
Total*
Sum
1.5
3.0
1.5
0
6.0
RCC
0.25
0.50
0.25
0
1.00
5-36
-------
Table 5.18: Relative Choice Coefficient* of Candidate Method*
for "Uncertainty Related to Method" Factor
Candidate Method
A
B
C
D (dummy)
Choice Assignments
0.5 0 1
0.5 0 1
111
0 00
Totals
Sum
1.5
1.5
3.0
0
6.0
RCC
0.25
0.25
0.50
0
1.00
5-37
-------
Table 5.19: Decision Matrix for Selection of Method
Decision
Factor
Acceptability
by EIA
regulators
Data
requirements
for use of
method
Uncertainty
related to
metnod
Dummy
SUM *
Method (FIC x RCC)
A
0.250
0.083
0.042
0
0.37S
B
O.OB5
0.167
0.042
0
0.294
C
0.165
0.083
0.085
0
0.333
D ( dummy )
0
0
0
0
0
5-38
-------
decision matrix is that the simulation of all products for all methods
should equal to 1.0.
The unranked paired-comparison multiple criteria decision-making
technique is illustrative of a number of approaches which can be used to
systematically compare EIA methods and select a "best choice." The
primary advantage of this technique is that it provide* a systematic
framework for making decisions. Decisions have been, and will continue to
be made without using structured approaches; however, the use of these
approaches will enable decision-makers to make better choices considering
all relevant selection factors. One note of caution is that careful
consideration should be given to the interpretation of the FIC and RCC
numerical values. These numerical values represent both quantitative
information and the application of professional judgment.
In summary, the advantages of using a decision methodology in EZA
methods selection include:
(1) it forces a systematic approach;
(2) it provides a rational framework;
(3) it can be used to document the selection process;
(4) it provides an "audit- trail for the selection; and
(5) it can be used to demonstrate trade-offs among the candidate
methods.
SELECTED REFERENCES
Barrow, C.J., Environmental and Social Impact Assessment. Arnold
Publishers, London, England, 1997, pp. 111-113, 156-158, 249-250, 296, and
298-299.
Canter, L.W., "Cumulative Impacts and EIA: The Use of Questionnaire
Checklists," EIA Newsletter 14. University of Manchester, Manchester,
England, August, 1997.
Canter, L.W., "Cumulative Effects and Other Analytical Challenges of
NEPA," Ch. 8, Environmental Policy and NEPA; Past. Present, and Future.
Clark, E.R., and Canter, L.W., editors, St. Lucie Press, Delray Beach,
Florida, 1997a, pp. 115-137.
Canter, L.H., and Kamath, J., "Questionnaire Checklist for Cumulative
Impacts," Environmental Impact Assessment Review. Vol. 15, No. 4, 1995,
pp. 311-339.
Contant, C.K., and Wiggins, L.L., "Toward Defining and Assessing
Cumulative Impacts: Practical and Theoretical Considerations,"
Environmental Analysis — The NEPA Experience. Hildebrand, S.G., and
Cannon, J.B., editors, Lewis Publishers, Inc., Boca Raton, Florida, 1993,
pp. 336-356.
Council on Environmental Quality, "Considering Cumulative Effects Under
the National Environmental Policy Act," January, 1997a, Executive Office
of the President, Washington, D.C., pp. ix-x, 28-29, and 49-57.
Court, J.D., Wright, C.J., and Guthrie, A.C., "Assessment of Cumulative
Impacts and Strategic Assessment in Environmental Impact Assessment,"
1994, Commonwealth Environment Protection Agency, Barton, Australia.
5-39
-------
Daman, D.C., Cressman, O.K., and Sadar, M.H., "Cumulative Effects
Assessment: The Development of Practical Frameworks," Impact Assessment.
Vol. 13, Mo. 4, December, 1995, pp. 433-454.
Dixon, J., and Montz, B.E., "From Concept to Practice: Implementing
Cumulative Impact Assessment in New Zealand," Environmental Management.
Vol. 19, Mo. 3, 1995, pp. 445-456.
Drouin, C., and LeBlanc, P., "The Canadian Environmental Assessment Act
and Cumulative Environmental Effects," Ch. 3, Cumulative Effects
Assessment in Canada; From Concent to Practice. Kennedy, A.J., editor,
Alberta Association of Professional Biologists, Edmonton, Alberta, Canada,
1994, pp. 25-36.
Environmental Resources, Ltd., "Environmental Impact Assessment —
Techniques for Predicting Effects in EIA," Vol. 2, February, 1982, London,
England.
Granholm, S.L., Gerstler, E., Everitt, R.R., Bernard, D.P., and Vlachos,
B.C., "Issues, Methods and Institutional Processes for Assessing
Cumulative Biological Impacts," Report 009.5-87.5, 1987, Pacific Cas and
Electric Company, San Ramon, California.
Hobbs, B.F., "Choosing How to Choose: Comparing Amalgamation Methods for
Environmental Impact Assessment," Environmental Impact Assessment Review.
Vol. 5, 1985, pp. 301-319.
Horak, G.C., Vlachos, E.G., and dine, E.W., "Methodological Guidance for
Assessing Cumulative Impacts on Fish and Wildlife," 1983, U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service, Washington, D.C.
Irving, J.S., Bain, M.B., Stull, E.A., and Witmer, G.W., "Cumulative
Impacts — Real or Imagined?," presented at Annual Meeting of the Idaho
Chapter, American Fisheries Society, March 6-8, 1986, Boise, Idaho.
Nichols, R., and Hyman, E., "Evaluation of Environmental Assessment
Methods," Journal of the Water Resources Management and Planning Division.
American Society of Civil Engineers, Vol. 108, No. WR1, March, 1982, pp.
87-105.
Reid, L.M., "Research and Cumulative Watershed Effects," General Technical
Report PSW-GTR-141, 1993, Pacific Southwest Research Station, U.S. Forest
Service, Albany, California, pp. vii, 13, 20, 25-35, and 52-57.
Sadler, B., and Verheem, R., "Strategic Environmental Assessment —
Status, Challenges, and Future Directions," Publication No. 53, 1996,
Ministry of Housing, Spatial Planning and the Environment, The Hague, The
Netherlands, pp. 27-29, 49, 73-79, 108-109, 147-149, and 173.
Smit, B., and Spaling, H., "Methods for Cumulative Effects Assessment,"
Environmental Impact Assessment Review. Vol. 15, No. 1, 1995, pp. 81-106.
Sonntag, M.C., Everitt, R.R., Rattle, L.P., Colnett, D.L., Wolf, C.P.,
Truett, J.C., Dorcey, A.H., and Rolling, C.S., "Cumulative Effects
Assessment: A Context for Further Research and Development," 1987,
Minister of Supply and Services Canada, Hull, Quebec, Canada, pp. ix-x, 7-
10, and 15-20.
5-40
-------
Stull, E.A., LaGory, K.E., and Vinikour, W.S., "Methodologies for
Assessing the Cumulative Environmental Effects of Hydroelectric
Development on Fish and Wildlife in the Columbia River Basin, Vol. 2:
Example and Procedural Guidelines," 1987, Argonne National Laboratory,
Axgonne, Illinois.
Stull, E.A., Bain, K.B., Irving, J.S., LaGory, K.E., and Hitmer, B.H.,
"Methodologies for Assessing the Cumulative Environmental Effects of
Hydroelectric Development on Fish and Wildlife in the Columbia River
Basin, Vol. 1: Recommendations," July 1, 1987a, Argonne National
Laboratory, Argonne, Illinois, pp. 75-78, 110-113, and 126-139.
Vestal, B., Rieser, A., Ludwig, M., Kurland, J., Collins, C., and Ortiz,
J., "Methodologies and Mechanisms for Management of Cumulative Coastal
Environmental Impacts — Part I: Synthesis, with Annotated Bibliography,
and Part II: Development and Application of a Cumulative Impacts
Assessment Protocol," NOAA Coastal Ocean Program Decision Analysis Series
No. 6, September, 1995, Coastal Ocean Office, National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, Silver Spring,
Maryland, pp. xxi-xxvii and 125-135 in Part I, and pp. 1-10 and 31-35 in
Part II.
Witmer, G.W., "Approaches to Cumulative Impact Assessment," CONF-8506146-
1, presented at National Wetland Assessment Symposium, June 17-20, 1985,
Portland, Maine.
5-41
-------
CHAPTER 6
PREDICTION METHODS FOR CUMULATIVE EFFECTS
This chapter includes a review of impact prediction methods used in
the EIA process, and their applicability for cumulative effects. Further,
case studies related to actual methods used are highlighted.
COMPARATIVE REVIEWS OF IMPACT PREDICTION METHODS
Impact prediction is focused on predicting changes in biophysical or
socio-economic factors or resources that would or could occur as a result
of a proposed project, plan, or program. The terms "predicting impacts"
and -"forecasting impacts" are typically considered to be synonymous.
However, Culhane, Friesema, and Beecher (1987) have suggested that
"forecasting impacts" is more appropriate for impact studies since: (1)
predict means to foretell with, the-precision of calculation, knowledge, or
shrewd inference from facts or experience; and (2) forecast,, in contrast,
suggests that conjecture rather than real insight or knowledge is apt to
be involved. Thus, they suggest that the changes resulting from a project
which are addressed in an EIS should be more appropriately termed as
"forecasts." However, it should be noted that these definitions are not
universally accepted. Therefore, the term prediction will be primarily
used herein in conjunction with several comparative studies and examples
of methods. Many of these studies and examples have applicability for
both project-level impacts and CEA.
An early study, published in the mid-1970s, provided a comparative
review of 12 techniques (methods) which could be used by water resource
planners in the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers as they addressed the impacts
of flood control and water supply projects (Mitchell, et al., 1975). Each
method was described comparatively in terms of uses, types of results,
time and personnel requirements, costs, and several other characteristics;
in addition, instructions were given on procedures for applying each
method, along with case illustrations. The 12 techniques included trend
extrapolation, pattern identification, probabilistic forecasting, dynamic
models, cross-impact analysis, KSIM, input-output analysis, policy capture
techniques, scenarios and related methods, expert-opinion methods,
alternative futures, and values forecasting techniques.
While this study extensively reviewed these 12 methods, they were
not necessarily chosen based on their actual application in environmental
impact studies. However, based on this study, and considering the
potential and actual usefulness of the prediction techniques in the early
1980s, the Principles and Guidelines of the Water Resources Council in the
United States delineated several prediction approaches which could be
utilized in environmental planning efforts for flood control and water
supply projects (Water Resources Council, 1983). These approaches
included: (1) adoption of forecasts made by other agencies or groups; (2)
use of scenarios based on differing assumptions regarding resources and
plans; (3) use of expert group judgment via the conduction of formalized
Delphi studies or the usage of the nominal group process; (4)
extrapolation approaches based upon the use of trends analysis and/or
simple models of environmental components; and (5) analogy and comparative
analyses which involve the use of look-alike resources and/or projects and
the application of information from such look-alike conditions to the
6-1
-------
planning effort. These approaches can be applied for both biophysical and
socioeconomic impact predictions.
A second study was prepared-for the Ministry of Environment in The
Netherlands in the early 1980s and was based on the examination of 140
environmental impact assessments (EIAs) and related studies (Environmental
Resources, Ltd., 1982). The case studies encompassed a broad range of
types of projects. The objectives were to identify predictive techniques
actually used in the practice of EIA, prepare descriptions of the
techniques, and classify the techniques in terms of the effect prediction
and the method used. A total of 280 predictive techniques were identified
and broadly classified into those for use in determining effects on the
atmospheric environment, the surface aquatic environment, the subsurface
environment (ground water and soils), the acoustic environment, plants and
animals, and landscape.
Table 6.1 displays a systematic grouping of the identified
prediction techniques (Environmental Resources, Ltd., 1982). Experimental
methods include physical models, field experiments, and laboratory
experiments focused on bioassays. Mathematical models refer to predictive
techniques which use mathematical relationships between system variables
to describe the way an environmental system will react to an external
influence. Mathematical models can be divided into empirical or "black
box" models where the relationships between inputs and outputs are
established from analysis of observations in the environment; and those
models which are "internally descriptive," that is, where the mathematical
relationships within the model are based on some understanding of the
mechanisms or processes occurring in the environment. Finally, survey
techniques are based on the identification and quantification of existing
or future aspects of the environmental component that might be affected in
terms of its sensitivity to change or the importance of its loss or
disturbance. A comprehensive discussion of these available prediction
methods in relation to impacts on the atmosphere, surface water, plants
and animals, landscape, soils and ground water, sound and noise, and human
health and welfare was included in a subsequent composite report from the
Dutch study (Environmental Resources, Ltd., 1984).
In the latter half of the 1980s, Culhane, Friesema, and Beecher
(1987) reviewed 29 EISs prepared on projects in the United States in terms
of the types of predicted impacts and their characteristics and associated
accuracy. The sample included seven bridge and/or highway/road projects,
three wastewater treatment plants and/or waste disposal projects, two
airport projects, six water resources projects (small watershed, barge
canal, two flood control, dredging, and dredged material disposal), three
urban development projects, three park and/or forest management projects,
three nuclear industry-related projects, one beach park expansion project,
and one rural electric project. Based upon the study results, an ideal
"model* for impact prediction was defined) the model suggests that the
predictions should be quantified, their significance should be
interpreted, and the related certainty/uncertainty should be specified.
Table 6.2 summarizes the characteristics of the 1105 forecasts
(predictions) in the sample group of 29 EISs in terms of the "ideal" EIS
prediction. Obviously, the majority of the forecasts (predictions) did
not match the ideal conditions.
Three categories of impact prediction methods used within the EIA
process in the 1990s are shown in Table 6.3 (Canter, 1997a). This
compilation was based upon the review of numerous environmental impact
study documents generated in several countries (USA, Canada, The
Netherlands, Australia, South Africa, and the United Kingdom). Again, the
listed types of methods are intended to be representative and not all-
inclusive.
6-2
-------
Table 6.1: Systematic Grouping of Prediction Techniques
(Environmental Resources Ltd., 1982)
Experimental Methods
(1) Physical models
• illustrative models
• 'working' models
(2) Field experiments
(3) Laboratory experiments
Mathematical Models
(1) Empirical models
• site-specific empirical models
• generalized empirical models
(2) 'Internally descriptive' models
• emission factor models
• roll-back models
• simple mixing models
• steady-state dispersion models
• complex mathematical models
Survey Techniques
(1) Inventory techniques
(2) Evaluation techniques
(3) Visibility techniques
6-3
-------
Table 6.2: Characteristics of Forecasts That Are Closely Related to the
Model of an Ideal EIS Prediction: Quantification,
Significance, and Certainty (Culhane, Friesema, and Beecher,
1987)
Forecast Characteristics
Quantification
Quantified
Time- series
Single-number postproject value
Postproject values, multiple indicators
Bounded-values forecast
Percentages, re nominal classification
•No impact" forecast
Verbal , unquant if ied * forecast
Sianificance Determination
"High" (or synonym, explicitly stated)
"Moderate" (or synonym, explicitly stated)
"Insignificant" (or synonym, explicit)
Quantified, without explicit significance
Vague/ambiguous significance statement
No explicit statement of significance
Certaintv/Uncertaintv Addressed
Quantified probability
Certainty guaranteed by situation
Impact conditional on intervening event
Probability implied by key words "will," "will
not," "very likely," etc.
Possibility implied by key words "may," "could,"
"may not," etc.
Forecasts
N
21
164
51
17
9
123
720
1,105
32
8
285
163
78
539
1,105
1
74
62
641
318
1,105
Percent
1.9
14.8
4.6
1.5
0.8
11.1
65^2
100
2.9
0.7
25.8
14.8
7.1
48.8
100
0.1
6.7
5.6
58.0
28.8
6-4
-------
Table 6.3: Impact Prediction Techniques Currently Used in the EIA Process
(Canter, 1997a)
Simple Techniques
Analogs (case studies of similar actions)
Inventory of Resources in Study Area (could use geographic
information systems)
Checklists (simple, questionnaire, descriptive)
Matrices (simple, stepped) or Networks (impact trees,
cause/effect or consequence diagrams)
Indices and Experimental Methods
Environmental Media Indices (air, surface and/or ground water
quality or vulnerability, land or soil quality, noise)
Habitat Indices (HEP, HES) or Biological Diversity Indices
Other Indices (visual, quality of life)
Experimental Methods (laboratory, field, physical models)
Mathematical Models
Air Quality Dispersion
Hydrologic Processes
Surface and Ground Hater Quality and Quantity
Noise Propagation
Expert Systems
Biological Impact (HEP, HES, WET, population, nutrients,
chemical cycling, energy system diagrams)
Ecological and Health-based Risk Assessment
Archeological (predictive)
Visual Impact
Socioeconomic (population, econometric, multiplier factors)
6-5
-------
Perhaps the simplest approach for impact prediction is to utilize
analogs or comparisons to the experienced effects of existing similar
projects or other types of actions. An inventory technique involves the
compilation of environmental resources information for the study area
through either the assemblage of existing data or the conduction of
baseline monitoring, with the presumption then being that the particular
resources in the existing environment, or portions thereof, will be lost
as a result of the proposed action. Often-used approaches for impact
prediction involve checklists or interaction matrices. Checklists range
from simple 'listings of anticipated impacts by project type, to
questionnaires incorporating a series of detailed questions related to
potential impacts and environmental resources, to descriptive checklists
with information on impact calculations and interpretation. Interaction
matrices include simple x-y matrices to identify impacts, and stepped or
cross-impact matrices for delineating secondary and tertiary consequences
of proposed actions. Networks (or impact trees or chains) or cause/effect
or consequence diagrams can also be utilized to trace the consequences of
proposed actions. The key point relative to both checklist and matrix
methods is that they yield qualitative results in terms of the predicted
impacts; however, they can be useful tools when used in conjunction with
environmental indices and/or quantitative modeling.
An environmental index refers to a mathematical and/or descriptive
presentation of information on a series of factors which can be used for
purposes of classification of environmental quality and sensitivity, and
for predicting the impacts of a proposed action (Canter, 1995b). The
approach for impact prediction would be to quantify, or at least
qualitatively describe, the change in the index as a result of the
proposed action, and to then consider the difference in the index from the
with and without project (or other actions) conditions as one measure of
impact. Indices exist for air quality, water quality, soil quality,
noise, visual quality, land usage compatibility, and quality of life (QOL
~ a socioeconomic index which can include a large number of specific
factors). One type of index which has received wide usage is based on
habitat considerations and the utilization of Habitat Evaluation
Procedures (HEP) or the Habitat Evaluation System (HES); these techniques
are primarily based on the development of a numerical index to describe
habitat quality and size (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 1980; and U.S.
Army Corps of Engineers, 1980). Experimental methods range from conducting
specific laboratory experiments to develop factors or coefficients for
mathematical models, to determining the quality of leachate from dredged
or solid waste materials, to the conduction of large scale field
experiments to measure changes in environmental features as a result of
system perturbations.
The most sophisticated approach for impact prediction involves the
selection and use of quantitative models for predicting pollutant
transport and fate and environmental cycling. In addition, models have
been developed for addressing environmental features and the functioning
of ecosystems, and system responses to man-induced perturbations. With
regard to air quality dispersion, there are numerous models which have
«Sn«.KeVe 10PS to/^dre« Point, line, and area sources of air pollution
and the results of dispersion from these sources (Turner, 1994; and U.S.
2¥iS5!St'i-pl?^Tsticw5mn'POrt in subaurface syatems. Surface water quality
SSL?2KL 7- 1 i* ra"98 f/7° °ne dimen8i°nal steady-state models to
three dimensional dynamic models which can be utilized for rivers, lakes,
and estuarine systems (Henderson-Sellers, 1991; James, 1993; and U.S.
6-6
-------
Corps of Engineers, 1987). Ground water flow models have been recently
modified to include subsurface processes such as adsorption and biological
decomposition (Water Science and Technology Board, 1990).
Noise impact prediction models have been developed for point, line,
and area sources of noise generation (Magrab, 1975; and World Health
Organization, 1986). These models range in complexity from simple
calculations involving the use of nomographs to sophisticated computer
modeling for airport operations.
Expert systems refer to computer programs that encode the knowledge
and reasoning used by specialists to solve difficult problems in narrowly
defined domains. They rely more on heuristic rules-of-thumb and pattern
matching to achieve their results, rather than numerical models and
algorithms. A key advantage is the ability to use the collective knowledge
of a number of experts rather than one single expert. Several expert
systems have been developed for the physical-chemical environment.
Biological impact prediction models are often based on the use of
habitat approaches. These index-based models include the Habitat
Evaluation Procedures (HEP) developed by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 1980), and the Habitat Evaluation
System (HES) and the Wetland Evaluation Technique (WET) developed by the
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, 1980; and
Adamus, et al., 1987). Other models include species population models,
species diversity indices, and biophysical models used for estimating
chemical cycling and interchanges in terrestrial or aquatic ecosystems.
Energy system diagrams which account for energy flows within and between
system components have also been used in some impact studies.
Risk assessment (RA) traditionally encompasses components of hazard
(risk) identification, dose-response assessment, exposure assessment, and
risk characterization. In recent years, attention has been directed
toward the incorporation of RA principles in the EIA process, with such
principles useful for examining both human health and ecological risks.
Predictive modeling is also possible for ascertaining the potential
presence of historical or archaeological resources in geographical study
areas (King, 1978). Such modeling is based upon evaluating a series of
factors to indicate the likelihood of historical or archaeological
resources being found; the factors are related to existing information,
the likelihood for early occupations in the area, and other biophysical
and sociological factors.
Visual impact models typically involve the evaluation of a series of
factors, in some cases quantitatively and in other cases descriptively or
by category, with the assemblage of the information into an overall visual
quality or resources index for the study area.
Impact prediction related to the socioeconomic environment is often
associated with the use of human population and econometric models
(Canter, Atkinson, and Leistritz, 1985). Population forecasting can range
in sophistication from simple projections of historical trends to
complicated cohort analysis models. Econometric models relate the
population and economic characteristics of study areas so that
interrelationships can be depicted between population changes and changes
in economic features within given study areas. Other impact predictions
for the socioeconomic environment, such as impacts on educational or
transportation systems can be addressed via multiplier factors applied to
population changes. Health impact predictions may utilize descriptive (or
conceptual) models, statistical models, matrices, or cause/effect diagrams
(Turnbull, 1992).
6-7
-------
Table 6.4 delineates substantive area examples of specific methods
(techniques) that could be used for impact prediction within the EIA
process; and many of them can be directly applied in CEA (Canter, 1997a).
It should be understood that the listed techniques are not all
mathematical models, nor do they represent a comprehensive delineation of
all potential methods. Within each of the substantive areas typically
addressed in an impact study, several techniques are available for impact
prediction.
EXAMPLES OF PREDICTION METHODS USED IN CEA CASE STUDIES
Examples of methods used for cumulative effects identification and
prediction in 25 case studies are in Table 6.5. It should be recognized
that these examples are not intended to be comprehensive, rather, they are
indicative of the types of methods being used in CEA practice. The listed
methods range from scoping to the use of quantitative modeling. To serve
as a more specific illustration. Table 6.6 lists prediction methods for
cumulative effects used by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers in 5 EISs, and
also by the U.S. Forest Service in 5 EISs (Cooper, 1995). Most of the
studies used several methods in the quantification of cumulative effects.
Further, several prediction methods have been developed for certain types
of watershed cumulative effects. Summary information on eight methods
developed in California and the Pacific Northwest region of the United
States is included in Table 6.7 (after Reid, 1993). Additional details on
the characteristics of these methods are summarized in Table 6.8, and also
found in Reid (1993).
Finally, examples of still more types of cumulative effects
prediction methods include:
(1) Energy balances and mass balances have been suggested as
useful prediction tools in CEA (Roots, 1986).
(2) Stress-response modeling refers to a general framework which
can be used to predict the response of environmental systems
to perturbations (Spaling, 1994).
(3) Suitability analyses which examine the characteristics of a
region and identify areas that are appropriate for or
sensitive to different types of development are one type of
method which can be used in CEA (Contant and Wiggins, 1993).
Overlay mapping and the use of CIS can facilitate suitability
analyses.' Such analyses do not involve predictions of
cumulative effects; rather, these effects are implicitly
considered in the context of the ability of natural systems to
withstand developmental pressures.
(4) CIS can be used in mapping historical and current baseline
conditions for land uses and biophysical features within the
study boundaries of a CEA. This tool can also be used to
develop qualitative/quantitative relationships between
environmental processes and resources. For example, a CEA
method involving aerial photointerpretation, multivariate
statistical analysis, and CIS techniques was developed to
relate wetland abundance with stream water quality in the
Minneapolis-St. Paul metropolitan area in Minnesota in the USA
(Johnston, et al., 1988).
(5) Carrying capacity studies are another type of CEA method.
Such studies recognize that biophysical and socio-economic
systems have inherent limits (or limiting factors), thus these
6-8
-------
Table 6.4: Examples of Impact Prediction Techniques Organized by Substantive
Areas (Canter, 1997a>
Air
{1} emission inventory
(2) urban area statistical models
(3) receptor monitoring
(4) box models
(5) single to multiple source dispersion models
(6) monitoring from analogs
(7) air quality indices
Surface Hater
(1) point and nonpoint waste loads
(2} QUAL-IIE and many other quantitative models
(3) segment box models
(4) waste load allocations
(5) water quality indices
(6) statistical models for selected parameters
(7) water usage studies
Ground Water
(1) pollution source surveys
(2) soil and/or ground water vulnerability indices
(3) pollution source indices
(4) leachate testing
(5) flow and solute transport models
(6) relative subsurface transport models
Noise
(1) individual source propagation models plus additive model
(2) statistical model of noise based on population
(3) noise impact indices
Biological
(1) chronic toxicity testing
(2) habitat-based methods
(3) species population models
(4) diversity indices
(5) indicators
(6) biological assessments
(7) ecologically-based risk assessment
Historical/archaeological
(1) inventory of resources and effects
(2) predictive modeling
(3) prioritization of resources
Visual
(1) baseline inventory
(2) questionnaire checklist
(3) photographic or photomontage approach
(4) computer simulation modeling
(5) visual impact index methods
Soc ioeconomic
(1) demographic models
(2) econometric models
(3) descriptive checklists
(4) multiplier factors based on population or economic changes
<5) quality-of-life (QOL) indices
(6) health-based risk assessment
6-9
-------
Table 6.5; Examples of Use of Identification and Prediction Methods in CEA
Case Study
Use of CIS for terrestrial habitat analysis in
conjunction with examining the cumulative effects on
wildlife of oil and gas developments in Alberta,
Canada
Use of information on wetland functions and
processes to qualitatively. estimate, the cumulative
effects of wetland alteration on hydrology and/or
water quality, or the cumulative effects of other
projects on wetland resources
Use of "scoping" workshop to identify key cumulative
effects on aquatic ecosystems for development
projects in the Hudson and James Bay areas of
northern Canada
Use of stepped matrices, for cumulative effects
identification for open cut mining of black coal in
Australia
Use of cause-effects networks for coastal zone
regional development in Australia
Use of adaptive environmental assessment and
management (AEAM) for cumulative effects on wetlands
in the Johnson River Catchment in Queensland,
Australia
• Use of CIS for mapping cumulative acid deposition
from 49 space shuttle launches in Florida, and for
empirically testing a rocket exhaust effluent
diffusion model
Use of impact rating and resource importance
weighting, via the "Cluster Impact Assessment"
Procedure (CIAP) of the U.S. Federal Energy
Regulatory Commission to examine cumulative impacts
from multiple hydropower projects in a river basin
Use of scoping workshop for issues identification in
a CEA for multiple development projects in the Slave
Geological Province in Canada
Use of els'* for mapping special aquatic sites and
dredge and fill activities in a CEA study of
Commencement Bay near Tacoma, Washington, in the USA
Use of CIS for examining cumulative effects to the
spatial configuration and functions of forested
wetlands
Use of CIAP (rating-weighting matrix) in a CEA of 15
small hydropower projects in the Salmon River Basin
in Idaho in the USA
Use of a cumulative impact matrix to summarize
additive, synergistic, and indirect cumulative
effects on wetlands over time and space
Reference
Eccles, et al.
(1994)
Brinson (1988);
Hemond and Benoit
(1988); and Winter
(1988)
Bunch and Reeves
(1992)
Court, Wright, and
Guthrie (1994)
Court , Wright , and
Guthrie (1994)
Court, Wright and
Guthrie (1994)
Duncan and Schmalzer
(1994)
Emery (1986)
ESSA Technologies,
Ltd. (1994)
David Evans and
Associates, Inc.
(1991)
Johnston (1994)
Irving and Bain
(1989 and 1993)
Risser (1988)
6-10
-------
Table 6.5 (continued):
Use of a coastal habitat evaluation method based on
habitat area and functional attributes to examine
cumulative effects in coastal areas in the USA
Ray (1994)
Use of hydrologic-.indices- based on harmonic analysis
and time-scale analysis of stream flows to examine
cumulative effects on wetlands
Nestler and Long
(1994)
Use of a streamflow and dissolved solids load
routing model to examine the cumulative effects of
anticipated coal mining on the salinity of the
Price, San Raphael, and Green Rivers in Utah in the
USA
Lindskov (1986)
Use of indicators—of landscape structure and
function in CEAs for bottomland hardwood forest
wetlands in the southeastern USA
Lee and Gosselink
(1988)
Scientifically-based professionalT')udgmenr approach
for CEAs of waterbird habitat in wetlands in the USA
Weller (1988)
Use of CIAP (rating-weighting matrix) for predicting
cumulative effects of hydropower projects on
wintering bald eagles in two river basins in western
Washington in the USA
Witmer and O'Neil
(1988)
Use of CIAP (rating-weighting matrix) for predicting
cumulative effects of 15 hydropower projects oh elk
and mule deer in the Salmon River basin in Idaho in
the USA
O'Neil and Witmer
(1988)
Use of CIS and geobotanical mapping to document
historical impacts and predict the cumulative
effects of oil developments in northern Alaska
(Prudhoe Bay) in the USA
Walker, et al.
(1987)
Use of professional knowledge and experience on
typical impacts of hydroelectric projects oh fish
and wildlife to predict cumulative effects in the
Columbia River basin in Washington in the USA
Stull, et al. (1987)
Use of qualitative fish habitat model for predicting
the cumulative effects of development projects on
fish resources in the Kenai River in Alaska in the
USA
Vestal, et al.
(1995)
Use of a qualitative landscape conservation approach
based on a landscape-level analysis and identified
environmental goals, along with professional
judgment, to examine the cumulative effects of
development scenarios in the Tensas River Basin in
Mississippi in the USA
Vestal, et al.
(1995)
Use of GLEAMS-(Groundwater Loading Effects of
Agricultural Management Systems) and EXAMS'* (Exposure
Analysis Modeling System) to quantify the potential
cumulative effects of insecticide application for
boll weevil control in the USA
Myslicki (1993)
6-11
-------
Table 6.6: Examples of Cumulative Effects Prediction Methods Used by Two
Federal Agencies in the United States (Cooper, 1995)
Agency
U.S. Army
Corps of
Engineers
U.S.
Forest
Service
Type of Project
River channel and
floodplain
development
Hurricane/flood
protection
River navigation
Flood control
Dam/reservoir
Land development
Timber sale
Timber sale
Ski area
development
Timber sales
Prediction Methods
• QUAL-TX (water quality model)
• Habitat Evaluation Procedure (HEP)
(wildlife effects)
• CIS
• HEC-1 (surface water runoff)
• HEP (fish and wildlife effects)
• Habitat Evaluation System (HES)
(fish and wildlife effects)
• CONGEST (navigation traffic flow)
• Watershed Hydrologic Simulation
Model (watershed runoff)
• CIS
• Overlay mapping
• Specific water temperature and water
turbidity models
• CE-THERM (reservoir processes model)
• QUAL II (water quality model)
• CIS
• HEP (wildlife)
• HEC-5 (flood control and
conservat ion )
• Habitat model (for red squirrel)
• Population dynamics model (for red
squirrel)
• RO3WILD model (habitat capability
indices for various wildlife
species )
• Simple Approach Smoke Estimation
Model (air quality effects from
particulates)
BOISED Model (sediment yields)
CIS
Elk Habitat Effectiveness Model
Box model (air quality)
Complex I (atmospheric transport and
dispersion model)
• TRANS PLAN model (transportation
effects)
• Forest Equivalent Roaded Area Model
(sedimentation, peak flows, and
changes in channel stability)
6-12
-------
Table 6.7» Examples of Prediction Methods for Cumulative Watershed Effects (Reid, 1993)
Model type
Result
Impact
mechanism
Land use
Impacts
Calibration
required
Data
required
for uie
Equivalent
Clearcul Are*.
Analysis
empirical
association
water yield,
peak flow
vegetation
change alien
water yield and
destabilizes
channels
logging, roads
not specified
water yield
inert tie by
habilil, practice,
elevation, region
use history, area
of each use unit
Klock
Watershed
Cumulative
Effects
weighted indices
index
th«etwash,
slides introduce
sediment and
destabilize
channels
logging, roads
not specified
slide survey,
runoff relative
to roads
use history, area
of each use
Equivalent
Roaded Area
use intensity
index
index
impacts increase
with increasing
intensity of use
logging, roads
not specified
impscl intensity
vs. index; pel.
change for uses
relative to rosds
use history, sres
of use units, site
factors
R I/R4
Sediment-Fish
Model
empirical
process-bate
rales and
populations
eroded sediment
in channels
impact fish
logging, roads
fish
relations
between
sediment,
habitat, and fish
use history, use
unil areas,
habitat and fith
surveys
CDF
Questionnaire
checklist
qualitative
all may b«
considered
lodging, roads
water quality,
fish, recreation,
others
user must
thoroughly
understand
processes and
impacts of region
may use any
information
source
WRENSS
physical
process
various
process rales
depends on
module
legging,
roads
not specified
depends on
module
much dm
required for
most
procedures
Limiting
Factor
Analysis
sum impacts;
process
smoll
production
habitat
change alters
fish survival
and
population
not specified
coho imoll
production
relations
between fish
density and
habitat
parameters
population
and habilat
inventories
Rational
Approach
(Grant)
physical process
critical flow
increased
bedload
transport alters
channel
not specified
not specified
no
measured
channel
characteristics
Notes: Klock refers to name of developer of Klock Watershed Cumulative Effects method; R-l/R-4 refers to
Regions 1 and 4 of the U.S. Forest Service; CDF is the California Department of Forestry and Fire
Protection; WRENSS stands for Water Resources Evaluation of Non-point silvicultural Sources; Grant
refers to the developer of the Rational Approach.
-------
Table 6.8: Potential OMB end Characteristic* of Prediction Methods for
Cumulative Watershed Effects (Heid, 1993)
Uiescoosidettd
•n^t^ m.ii.y •»•
Roadi
Afbcnmm
ff^^rim.
UlUailLUUUB
Peak flow cfaaafc
Sediment change
^Wmfe^ f^^MM *J***fc
Nuneat change
Cfaaaael itihflhy
Fbh
Pf^Mfinil
Water quality
Fona of resale
Index
Rueorvsine
Qiriliiinre
ScteBO& basic
Ibeorencftl
Empirical
Vafidanoa
Sauce:
Rexaidi
Maaapmem
BCA CWCEA ERA
t z z z
z z z
e . c
e . e
c . e
G . e
z . z
z . z
z z
•V • • •
• * •
.
1 • • •
z z z
...
• • •
z
z z
z
.
.
z a z
a
•
z • z
S/F
z
z
e
c
e
G
,
z
„
.
•
z
.
z
.
z
•
z
z
.
z
z
CDF
z
z
z
z
z
z
z
z
z
X
X
z
z
z
z
z
z
z
.
.
z
•
•
•
.
z
WRENSS LFA
X
z
(x)
(x)
(x)
(x)
X Z
z z
z z
X
X
z
Z»
m
z
X
.
X
z
.
X X
X
(x) x
(x) x
(x) •
X X
X
RA
.
.
.
.
.
•
X
.
.
.
•
z
.
.
•
-
X
•
X
a
a
z
•
z Moddappita BCA EqoivakaiGenoaAita
Model docs aoctppiy KWCEA B^ckW«cnfaedCaBritfh*Effec&AuiyBS
c Mddd could mtlT if cifp****^ QtA Q^owJcflKKoBOfltlARA
a Nocfpeofed or unknown S/F R-Irtl-* Sediment FbaModd
(Z) vinTT ™Bfa priftT CDF ^•Hf"*"'* n»p»mi«^ n/Bngmiry
WRENSS W«erRejoorce»E»»tairioorfNon-po«Bt
[PA T hulling Factor Aaatyia
RA Ranomd Approach (G«Mt)
6-14
-------
constraints on development are identified. Further,
mechanisms for monitoring the incremental use of any unused
system capacity can be identified (Contant and Wiggins, 1993).
(6) EXAMS (Exposure Analysis Modeling System) was developed by the
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency for modeling the
transport and fate of a wide variety of chemicals in aquatic
environments; the latest version is called EXAMS II (Myslicki,
1993).
(7) The "societal growth induction" capability of the proposed
project may also need to be addressed in CEA (Contant and
Wiggins, 1993). Growth induction refers to the fact that the
introduction of certain activities can accelerate or
decelerate the rate of development of new activities. Thus
certain activities may have a precedent-setting effect in
stimulating even greater development than previously
anticipated.
(8) IMPIAN is an economic input-output model developed by the U.S.
Forest Service for estimating the effects of their various
actions on employment, income, population, and other
parameters at the county level and any higher aggregate
affected area (Myslicki, 1993). It can also be used to
examine cumulative socio-economic effects resulting from many
types of federal and private development actions.
(9) Bounding analyses refer to simplified quantitative analyses
that incorporate conservative assumptions and analytical
techniques to ensure that the potential impacts of proposed
actions are not underestimated (Saylor and McCold, 1994). The
"bounds" could be selected so as to represent "bast, case" and
"worst case" conditions. Such quantitative analyses can be
useful for both project-level and strategic impact studies,
and for CEAs within these studies. Saylor and McCold (1994)
suggested that bounding analysis can be useful: (1) when an
impact is expected to be insignificant; (2) when considering
the generic impacts of a category of action; (3) in the
preparation of programmatic EISs (also called SEAs); and (4)
for accident analyses and assessments for low-probability,
high-consequence events.
Cumulative Effects on Air Quality — Examples of Prediction Methods and a
Protocol
A "state-of-practice" review of 27 impact study documents (19 final
EISs and 8 final EAs) prepared by one large U.S. federal agency (the U.S.
Air Force) was recently completed (Rumrill and Canter, 1998). The
documents, prepared from 1989 to 1996, represented more than 12% of such
EISs/EAs prepared by the agency in the time period. While this small
percentage cannot be considered as statistically representative, the study
documents can be viewed as indicative of CEA practice in this agency. The
documents were systematically examined regarding the approaches and
quantification methods used to address cumulative effects on one
environmental resource — ambient air quality. It was found that seven
documents included some type of quantitative emission estimation,
typically linked to the project-specific air quality impact
quantification, and an additional nine cases included a qualitative
discussion. Thirteen documents included cumulative effects considerations
on both local and regional spatial scales. They all accessed regional
monitoring data to determine the regional ambient pollutant concentration
6-15
-------
levels without the contemplated action. All 13 also contained project-
specific quantitative emissions estimations, predictions, and analysis of
the air quality impacts anticipated from the proposed action and its
alternatives. Ten of the EISs and one EA included some type of project-
specific air quality modeling results. Finally, 11 cases provided some
type of guideline for the determination of the significance of me air
quality impacts.
The accomplishments and limitations discovered through the analysis
of the 27 documents were utilized as the basis for the development of an
8-step protocol for conducting a "cumulative air quality effects
assessment" (CAQEA). Table 6.9 summarizes the eight steps. The steps can
be accomplished either as an integral part of the EIA process applied to
a specific project; or via a separate study for a general area and
timeframe and incorporated by reference into individual project
assessments. It is noteworthy that the requirements for an adequate CEA of
air quality closely parallel the requirements for adequate study of
project-specific air quality effects. For example, six steps for a
project-specific air quality effects study are shown in Table 6.10
(Canter, 1996), and their linkages to the 8-step CEA- focused method are
displayed. For example, in Steps 2, 3 and 5 of the CAQEA method,
activities are determined, within a set of time and space boundaries, that
are to be analyzed for air quality effects. Also, the type and quantity
of emitted pollutants should be estimated. These steps are similar to
Step 1 in Canter's model where the specific activities or phases of the
proposed action likely to affect air quality are identified. Once
identified, pollutant type and quantity estimates are developed for the
proposed action. Step 6 of CAQEA and Step 4 of Canter's model are both
focused on technical predictions, with possible differences only in the
predictive methods or air quality models employed and the level of detail
of the analysis. Finally, Steps 7 and 8 of CAQEA are specifically
intended to be incorporated within the requirements Canter presents in
Steps 5 and 6, respectively.
Indicators and Indices
Indicators can be used in CEA studies; for example, eight indicators
of bottomland hardwood ecosystems proposed for use in CEAs of related
wetlands are shown in Table 6.11 (Lee and Gosselink, 1988). Alterations
of these indicators via development projects could be used to
qualitatively predict cumulative effects on wetlands.
Selection of ecological indicators for a CEA study should be based
on concepts of ecosystem carrying capacity, assimilative capacity and
sustainability; and community values about what makes individual
ecosystems healthy and how much degradation is acceptable (Drouin and
LeBlanc, 1994). Further, Stevenson (1994) noted the following criteria
for consideration in selecting cumulative effects indicators:
(1) availability of secondary data sources;
(2) provision of information on key VECs;
(3) compatibility with and complementarity to indicators used in
provincial/regional/national monitoring programs;
(4) usefulness in measuring cumulative effects which are
substantial, irreversible, transgenerational, or catalytic;
(5) sensitivity to the magnitude, direction and duration of
stress; and
6-16
-------
Table 6.9: Steps for Cumulative Air Quality Effects Assessment
(CAQEA)
Step
No. of
Documents
Observed*
1. Select definition of
to be applied to the
analysis.
CE
18
Comments
CEQ definition is
recommended.
2. Determine spatial and
temporal boundaries.
27
Consider physical
airshed and political
regions (spatial) and
forecasting capability
limitations (temporal).
3. Determine past, .present,
and reasonably foreseeable
future actions to be
included in the analysis.
18
18 documents addressed
specific projects
identified for inclusion
in CEA.
4. Determine background
ambient air pollutant
concentrations and obtain
applicable standards.
Regional air quality
21 monitoring station data
is recommended.
5. Develop quantitative and
qualitative emission data
estimates for the actions
determined in step 3.
Not all 16 documents
16 included both
quantitative and
qualitative analysis.
"6". Determine quantitative
and qualitative change to
background air quality
(determined in step 4)
resulting from evaluated
actions.
16
Not all 16 documents
included both
quantitative and
qualitative analysis.
Emissions inventories
and quantitative air
quality modeling can be
useful.
7. Evaluate the CE
significance in context with
the air quality impacts of
the action originally
generating the NEPA
requirement and incorporate
that significance into the
assessment.
Necessary to properly
determine impact
s ignif icance.
8. Include mitigation
opportunities for CEs when
discussing specific action
impact mitigation.
Additional mitigation
opportunities/options
are available when other
activities are
considered.
•Out of 27 documents in the study group
CE « cumulative effects
6-17
-------
Table 6.10: Comparison between Canter's 6-Step Project-Specific Model and the 8-Steps
fbrCAQEA
1. Select definition of CE to be
applied to the analysis.
2. Determine spatial and temporal
boundaries.
3. Determine past, present, and
reasonably foreseeable future
actions to be included in the
analysis.
4. Determine background ambient
air pollutant concentrations and
obtain applicable standards.
5. Develop quantitative and
Qualitative emission data
for the actions determined in step 3.
6. Determine quantitative and
qualitative change to background air
quality (determined in step 4)
resulting from evaluated actions.
7. Evaluate die CE -ti
n
context with the air quality impacts
of the action originally generating
the N**-PA rpmnrprngnf and
incorporate that significance into the
B* indUCIC TTOTIBfltiOn
for CEs when rfigmgytng specific
Step 1: Identification of Air Quality
Impacts of Proposed Project
Step 2: Description of Existing Air
Environment Conditions
Step 3: Procurement of Relevant Air
Quality Standards and/or
Guidelines
Step 4: Impact Prediction (technical)
Step 5: Assessment of Impact
Significance
Step 6: Identification and
Incorporation of Mitigation
Measures
6-18
-------
Table 6.11: Indicators of Bottomland Hardwood (BLH) Landscape Structure and
Function (after Lee and Gosselink, 1988)
Indicator
1. Fraction of BLH remaining
2. BLH patch size distribution
3. Contiguity:
a. BLH to stream
b. BLH to upland forest
4. Water quality
5. Nutrient loading
6. Stage-discharge relations
7. Water detention
8. Balanced indigenous
populations
Definition
BLH remaining as % of historical or
potential
Size-frequency distribution of BLH
patches
Length of BLH-stream inter face/ 2 x
stream length
Length of BLH-upland forest
interface /total BLH-upland interface
Historical change in flow-adjusted
concentration of phosphorus
Total nutrient input/water flux
Historical changes in stage-
discharge rating curves
Volume of water stored on
floodplain/ discharge
Old growth stands;
endangered/threatened species;
presence/absence of indicator
species; change in bird species
richness
6-19
-------
(6) usefulness for predicting thresholds, measuring assimilative
capacities, and anticipating and monitoring change.
Environmental indices can be useful for describing baseline
environmental conditions and considering potential cumulative effects.
For example, indices of biotic integrity (IsBI) are being utilized in the
State of Maryland in the United States for establishing the aquatic
environment conditions for a cumulative effects study of electric power
generating and transmission systems. Such indices, which to date have
been developed for fish, represent the "health or integrity" of aquatic
biological communities (Southerland, et al., 1997).
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency developed a synoptic
approach for CEAs of wetlands (Leibowitz, et al., 1992). This rapid
assessment approach uses indicators and developed indices to facilitate
qualitative comparisons of cumulative effects between different areas such
a* watersheds, landscape units or ecoregions (Vestal, et al., 1995). The
key components of this approach are "synoptic indices." Such indices are
composed of variables used to compare landscape subunits, which will
generally indicate function, values, functional loss, or replacement
potential. Synoptic indices are developed based on a conceptual,
ecological model of the forces and functions driving the wetlands,
identifying the stressors in the particular area, and choosing which
landscape indicators to use to comprise the indices. The indices are
mapped and can be used to rank units of the landscape. These results are
useful in examining potential cumulative effects from developments in
specific geographical areas.
Qualitative Habitat Methods
Three examples of qualitative habitat methods for use in cumulative
effects predictions can be noted. For example, a fish habitat-based
approach has been used by the State of Alaska in the USA to examine the
cumulative effects of development and human uses on the physical and
biological integrity of the Kenai River's habitat for resident and
anadromous fish. The CEA methodology included the following steps
(Vestal, et al., 1995):
(1) Identify the target resource (fish habitat) and develop a fish
habitat classification scheme.
(2) Develop a baseline description of the conditions occurring
along the Kenai River correlated to individual land ownership
patterns.
(3) Select and apply a qualitative fish habitat value model
procedure (the procedure included indicator species and
habitat suitability rating curves).
(4) Complete a development trends analysis by examining historical
and current projects and future development plans and
projects.
(5) Model future changes in habitat characteristics based on
examining the influence of development scenarios on the
qualitative fish habitat model.
6-20
-------
This use of a fish habitat-based approach is similar to the index-
related models included in the Habitat Evaluation System of the U.S. Army-
Corps of Engineers for aquatic habitats. It is also conceptually similar
to habitat suitability index models for fish species developed as part of
the Habitat Evaluation Procedure of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.
The National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) in the United States
has developed and tested a CEA protocol for coastal and marine ecosystems
potentially subjected to cumulative effects from wetland and waterway
development projects. The steps in the protocol are summarized in Table
6.12 (Vestal, et al., 1995). The NMFS has examined two approaches for
implementing the protocol — a key indicator species (IS) approach and a
habitat-based landscape (HL) approach. The IS approach stresses the
cumulative effects of specific development-related impacts on the
ecological requirements of a population of an indicator species; while the
HL approach emphasizes the cumulative effects of the incremental
degradation and loss over time of important habitat functions throughout
an ecologically defined landscape setting (Vestal, et al., 1995).
The IS approach involves defining the habitats of concern and
selecting one or more indicator species. For each selected species, key
ecological factors which relate to its survival are identified. An
interaction matrix is then developed to identify effects from development
projects on the key ecological factors and, in turn, the indicator
species. The HL approach traces the progression of coastal development
and habitat loss in function, size, and value in a given landscape setting
over time. Proposals for new developments are then considered in the
context of this data to assess cumulative effects. Both approaches rely
upon the considerable exercise of professional judgment. However, in
general, the HL approach is useful where a variety of habitat types or
functions appear to have been affected by previous development, so that an
analysis of impacts to indicator species may not adequately represent the
cumulative effects of coastal development. Finally, the IS and the HL
approaches differ in orientation, with the former taking a "bottom up-
perspective by projecting broad scale effects based on the site-specific
ecological requirements of representative species. The HL approach takes
a "top down" perspective, using historical records to document habitat
loss, and inferring impacts to living marine resources according to the
type and quantity of habitat functions lost over time (Vestal, et al.,
1995).
Cluster Impact Assessment Procedure and the Integrated Tabular Method —
Applications for Small Hydroelectric Projects
The Cluster Impact Assessment Procedure (CIAP) was developed by the
U.S. Federal Energy Regulatory Commission for use in CEAs of •mall
hydroelectric power projects (typically 10 MW or less) in the Pacific
Northwest region of the United States. The central feature of CIAP is the
calculation of a total cumulative impact score for selected fish or
wildlife species based on individual project impacts plus (or minus)
related interaction impacts (Irving and Bain, 1989). The method involve*
the assignment of numerical impact ratings for target species based on
pre-defined criteria for life cycle components (or processes) of th«
species. The relative importance of the components (or processes) is then
considered along with potential interaction effects between the components
(or processes). The total impact score is the product of pertinent
ratings and importance weights considering the project by itself, it*
interaction effects, and related projects in the study area. The CIAP ha*
been applied in a CEA of 15 small hydroelectric projects in the Salmon
River Basin located in Idaho in the USA ilrving and Bain, 1989). Such an
approach was supported by Eckberg (1986) when he presented litigative-
6-21
-------
Table 6.12: CEA Protocol for Coastal and Marine Ecosystems (after Vestal,
et al., 1995)
Step 1: Determine Whether to Review in Depth for Cumulative Effects
For each proposed coastal development project, determine
whether detailed cumulative effects review is appropriate. In
general, projects may be considered appropriate for review
under the Protocol if the project site, surrounding area,
and/or types of resources at risk have been subject to
substantial yet incremental environmental impacts, resulting
in a decrease in the amount or quality of environmental
functions and values.
Step 2: Collect and Synthesize Information
(a) For each project that warrants more detailed cumulative
effects review, select and define a coastal geographic
area that constitutes a landscape unit and has definable
ecological boundaries to be studied for cumulative
effects. Conduct a literature search to identify major
components of the ecosystem, its former and existing
condition (if different), and its specific functions and
values which could be affected cumulatively from coastal
development. Seek out researchers who have conducted or
are conducting investigations that could prove helpful
in understanding specific resource functions, processes,
and impacts.
(b) Document resource use of and reliance upon the
identified landscape unit. This can be based on
collecting, reviewing, and citing life history
information for ecologically important species; citing
coastal ecology literature for habitat functions and
values; and using life history and habitat information
to describe the use of the selected geographic area by
species, including food web relationships, shelter from
predators, etc.
(c) Identify indicators of ecosystem condition in the
project area such as water quality, sediment quality, or
the presence of sensitive resources (e.g., eelgrass
beds).
(d) Document possible anthropogenic sources of stress to the
selected area, e.g., pollutant inputs, changes to
freshwater flow and salinity, habitat alteration or
destruction, and fishing pressure. Obtain historical
information on habitat loss or degradation due to
permitted and unregulated activities.
Step 3: Identify Goals and Objectives for Project Area
Identify the desired future condition for the resource area
within its geographic context. This information may be
obtained from existing planning documents of several
governmental agencies and entities.
6-22
-------
Table 6.12 (continued):
Step 4: Evaluate Individual Projects Using the Protocol
(a) Determine what functions or processes would be affected
by the project in the selected area, using site visits,
review of project files, related impact study documents,
literature about the area, and/or state, local, or
regional plans.
(b) Quantify the amount of habitat loss or degradation from
the project, including types of habitat functions/values
lost and the acreage lost or degraded.
(c) Assemble historical information on habitat quantity and
quality in the watershed and landscape area surrounding
the project site to determine previous conditions and
cumulative losses to date. Use sources such as existing
habitat maps, old aerial photos, U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers permit files, historical records, and
interviews with landowners and local officials.
(d) Project any potential future habitat impacts to the
project area due to other foreseeable activities.
Include impacts from similar types of projects or
different activities affecting the same landscape area,
and use any available trends information from town
planners, chambers of commerce, regional planning
documents, etc.
(e) Project or calculate the additive total of habitat loss
or degradation from similar projects in the geographical
area.
(f) Combine data generated in (a) through (e) above to gauge
the cumulative effect of the project together with past
and anticipated future projects in the area, and draw
ecological connections between the types of impacts
identified and the species of concern to NMFS.
6-23
-------
baaed arguments for using a river-basin approach in examining the
cumulative effects of small hydropower projects.
The CIAP was developed by" the U.S. Federal Energy Regulatory
Commission as a met.-.— for assessing the cumulative effects of multiple
hydroelectric projects in a river basin. The steps in CIAP include
(Hochberg, Friday, and Stroup, 1993):
Step 1: A workshop is conducted to define goals, determine the
number and location of projects, determine target
resources and their associated components (e.g., bald
eagle food supply and roost habitat), and assign
evaluative impact ratings. Ratings represent impact
magnitudes on a standardized scale. A combination of
quantitative values and qualitative descriptions is used
to formulate the criteria. The total cumulative impact
of multiple projects is then represented by the
relationship:
Cumulative impacts * sum of project impacts +• interaction impacts.
Step 2: Each targeted resource component is rated, and the total
cumulative impact ratings for all possible combinations
are calculated.
Step 3: Projects that exceed an allowable level of impact for
one or more resource components are flagged based on
biological thresholds, liming factors, or management
objectives. Project combinations with one or more
flagged projects are screened out.
Step 4: Preferred project combinations are identified, and the
cumulative impacts of preferred project combinations are
described and summarized.
Stull, et al. (1987a) described a CEA method for quantifying the
cumulative effects to fish (Chinook salmon) and wildlife (elk) of
hydropower projects in the Columbia River Basin in the United States. The
method, called the Integrated Tabular Method (ITM), addresses both habitat
and population effects. The ITM can be considered as an expansion of the
CIAP in that interactions between single project effects can be quantified
(Hochberg, Friday, and Stroup, 1993). The flow diagram of ITM is displayed
in Figure 6.1 (Stull, et al., 1987a). The first step on geographic
boundaries and study scope establishes the context of the CEA. Geographic
boundaries can be based on features of the natural environment,
institutional boundaries such as management areas, the "impact footprint"
of a typical project, and project locations. Study scope can involve
establishing the number and locations of past, present, and future
projects; and selecting one to several target fish and wildlife species or
natural resources. Decisions on geographic boundaries and study scope
should also be tempered by the consideration of information requirements
and sources of such information (Step 2). The end result of Steps 1 and
2 should be a nap showing the potentially affected habitats or resources
or populations of the target species.
The design of a strategy for accumulating and aggregated cumulative
effects on target species or resources (Step 3) should encompass both
direct effects on species populations or resources as well as effects
resulting from changes in the physical-chemical environment; e.g., changes
in river flows and water quality. Another consideration related to Step
3 is associated with the way in which a population of the target species
6-24
-------
Establish geographic
boundaries and scope
of the assessment
Establish information
requirements and
identify sources
of information
Design a strategy
for accumulating and
aggregating cumulative
effects
Develop models for
estimating effects
to populations from
effects on habitat
Collect information and
perform single-project
assessments
Accumulate
and aggregate
cumulative effects
Apply results to
planning and regulation
of hydroelectric
development
Figure 6.1: Flow Diagram of the ITM (after Stull, et al., 1987a)
6-25
-------
responds to multiple direct and related effects. In this regard, the
issue is related to whether the effects are additive, synergistic, or
antagonistic; and whether the _ species exhibits resiliency and/or
recoverability. Accordingly, either a univariate or multivariate approach
may be required.
Step 4 in the ITM involves the development of models to quantify the
habitat and population changes resulting from hydroelectric development
projects. The models could be developed via use of AEAM workshops and
simulation exercises, taking into consideration data availability and
professional knowledge and experience.
Once the models are developed, they can be applied to both single
project assessments (Step 5) and CEAs of multiple projects (Step 6). The
models can range from very simple ones in which the effect is directly
related to a single property such as riparian habitat, to complex ones in
which the effects are due to non-additive combinations of changes to
several influencing factors or properties. The effects of projects on
various species or resources should be expressed in units that directly
reflect the magnitude of the effect (e.g., number of adult individuals
lost, acres of habitat lost) rather than qualitative criteria (Stull, et
al., 1987a),
The key element of ITM is Step 4 on model development, and a
fundamental component would be response curves for target species (or
resources) based on specific effect variables (Hochberg, Friday, and
Stroup, 1993). Additional components are interaction coefficients (i.e.,
the quantity used to calculate the change in a project's impact caused by
the influence of another project) which are based on the response curves.
Interaction coefficients should be determined for all pairwise
permutations of projects in the study area. However, before the
interaction coefficients can be calculated, the following steps must be
taken (Stull, LaGory, and Vinikour, 1987):
(1) The overlap areas of the project impact zones must be
determined; these areas can be determined by the following
methods: (1) area size (area of overlap/area of impact); (2)
habitat (habitat in overlap/entire habitat; (3) population
(population in overlap/entire population); and (4) impact
(impact in overlap/entire impact).
(2) The project impact zones must be segmented, if necessary;
river reaches or other areas can be subdivided into as many
segments as are supported by the quantity of data available
from the single project assessments.
(3) Shared project features must be identified; when the effects
of several projects are accumulated, the resulting estimate of
cumulative effect will be too high unless some adjustment for
the shared project features is made (e.g., projects sharing
roads and transmission lines). To correctly calculate the
interaction coefficient when a shared project feature is in
the overlap area, the response of the population to the shared
project feature must be added to the calculation.
(4) The nonlinearity of the species responses to the combined
effects of different pairs of projects must be determined.
An equation for calculating interaction coefficients, based on
overlapping project impact zones as shown in Figure 6.2, is as follows
(LaGory, Stull, and Vinikour, 1993):
6-26
-------
Figure 6.2:
Graphical Depiction of Overlapping Project Impact Zone*
and Terms Used in Calculating Interaction Coefficients
(LaGory, Stull, and Vinikour, 1993)
6-27
-------
-
W] ^
'-
where Cu * an interaction coefficient, in this case, the effect of
Project 2 on Project 1
Ou * •the area of overlap between the project impact zones of
Projects 1 and 2
Z, * the area of the impact zone of Project 1
* the predicted response of the species or resource to
both projects in the area of overlap of project impact
zones if both projects are built
R10 * the predicted response of the species or resource to
Project 1 in the area of overlap if only Project 1 is
built ;
RJB * the predicted response of the species or resource to
Project 2 in the area of overlap if only Project 2 is
built
To aggregate cumulative effects, the ITM incorporates both an impact
matrix and an interaction matrix for each targeted species. The impact
matrix is a single row composed of the single project impacts, while the
interaction matrix has many rows and columns (the elements in this matrix
are the interaction coefficients representing the ability of the project
indicated by the column number to modify the effect of the project
indicated by the row number (Stull, LaGory, and Vinikour, 1987).
Additive effects from multiple projects on a single target species
are determined simply by adding the effects of each project. With
additive accumulation, it is assumed that the effects are incremental and
that no interactions occur among the effects that would enhance or
diminish the cumulative effect. As shown in Figure 6.3, an additive
cumulative effect might be the total acreage of riparian habitat removed
during construction of several separate small hydroelectric projects
(Stull, et al., 1987a).
To address nonadditive, interactive effects of multiple projects,
matrix algebra can be used; this approach has been a feature of both
population and ecosystem modeling (Stull, et al., 1987a). To illustrate
this concept. Figure 6.4 displays nonadditive, interactive effects and the
related matrix calculations. The impact matrix shows the quantified
impaccs (e.g., acres of habitat loss) on a target species. If the effects
were aaditive the loss for the five projects would be 97 units. However,
the project-by-project interaction matrix shows, in each cell, the
interaction between the project represented by the row and the project
represented by the column. The value in a given cell is zero if no
interaction exists between the pairs of projects, positive if the
interaction is supra-additive, and negative if the interaction is infra-
additive. Ones are assigned to the elements along the main diagonal (the
cross comparisons). In the example, the presence of project 1 increases
the impact of project 2 by 50% (0.5), and project 2 increases the impact
of project 1 by 20% (0.2). To account for interactions among projects,
the interaction matrix and the impact matrix are multiplied using matrix
6-28
-------
Riparian zone
Diversion
Powerhouse
Ptrtstock
Project 1
(0.2 acre less)
Additive cumulative effect •
sum of individual project effects •
OL2 acres *
-------
Project 4
lepaet Maerin
Project
1 2 3 4 S
Xapact 15 10 12 SO 201
, I
•
s*
IH
• 3
««
•, 4
S,
Project location
Interaction Matrt*
Effect of project
1 '2343
1 0.2 0 0 0
hO.3 1 000
0 0100
0 0010
0 0001
Produce Matria
'/f
Figure 6.4:
• (10 11 12 SO 20|
effect • sue) of elements in product evtria
• 10 • 11 * 12 *-50 * 20* 103
Sxcapl* of Hfttrix Calculation of Honadditiv» Interactive)
Kffecte (Stull, «t al., 1987a)
6-30
-------
algebra. That is, the first element of the impact matrix is multiplied by
the element in the first row and first column of the interaction matrix;
the second element of the impact matrix is multiplied by the element in
the second row and first column; and so on until all of the elements of
the impact matrix have been multiplied by the corresponding elements of
the first column of the interaction matrix. These products are summed to
produce the first element of the product matrix. In a similar fashion,
the elements of the impact matrix are multiplied by the elements of the
remaining columns and the sums computed to produce the remaining elements
of the product matrix. This product matrix will have the same dimensions
as the impact matrix (e.g., acres of habitat loss).
It should be noted that the ITM allows for consideration of the
cumulative effects of new projects (e.g., all five projects in Figure 6.4
are proposed), or new and existing projects (e.g., project 2 is new and
projects 1, 3, 4, and 5 are existing), or new, existing and future
projects (e.g., project 2 is new, projects 3, 4, and 5 are existing, and
project 1 is planned for the future).
The final step in ITM (Step 7) is to consider the findings of the
CEA in the planning and regulation of hydroelectric development in the
Columbia River Basin. Such considerations could include different
scenarios for current and future development projects, and their inclusion
in both short-term and longer-term decisions.
In summary, the ITM is very flexible and can be applied to many
different types of projects, species, and habitats. Impact and
interaction information is displayed in a systematic and organized fashion
that enables a quick determination of which projects have the greater
single-project effects and which projects interact most strongly (and in
which manner) with others. Reviews of the impact and interaction matrices
can facilitate the analysis of different development scenarios (Stull, et
al., 1987a). However, the ITM has some disadvantages. For example, there
is the need for more data than is typically available. These data are
required to build the models needed for estimations of effects on species
or resources. Further, the ITM uses only first-order interactions (those
between pairs of projects) to calculate the cumulative effect of multiple
projects. Although higher-order interactions among projects may occur,
the cost of accounting for these interactions would be great. Finally,
with the ITM, the cumulative effects would need to be addressed for each
of the species (resources) being considered. The ITM does not provide an
approach for aggregating into one value the overall cumulative effect on
all species (resources).
Irving and Bain (1993) described an application of the ITM within
the CIAP for .a study of cumulative effects on fish and wildlife from
hydroelectric project development in the Salmon River Basin, Idaho. Using
Chinook salmon as the target species and five resource components for the
species (spawning/incubation habitat, juvenile rearing habitat, adult
holding habitat, migration/movement disruption, and sediment transport),
an impact model was developed. Criteria for five impact levels war*
developed for the five components, and Table 6.13 summarizes the level*
for three of the five components (Irving and Bain, 1993). Project
interaction coefficients were also developed, with Table 6.14 depicting
such coefficients for the migration/movement disruption component (Irving
and Bain, 1993). In the developed model for Chinook salmon, the total
impact is calculated as follows (Irving and Bain, 1993):
Total impact « sum of project impacts * interaction impacts
The computations for the total impact to Chinook salmon considering
three resource components and two projects are shown in Figure 6.5 (Irving
6-31
-------
Table 6.13: Description of Impact: Level Criteria for Three Chinook Salmon
Resource Components: Spawning/Incubation, Juvenile Rearing,
and Adult Holding Habitat* (Irving and Bain, 1993)
Impact Levels*
4 (High)
3 (Moderate)
2 (Low)
1 (Negligible)
0 (None)
Description of Impact Levels'
>25% decrease in weighted usable area (WUA) or
if WUA not available, then <30% of the mean
annual flow
>15-25% decrease in WUA or if WUA not
available, then 30 to <60% (April-September)
or 30-<40% (October-March) of the mean annual
flow
>5-15% decrease in WUA or if WUA not
available, then 60 to <80% (April-September)
and 40-<80% (October-March) of the mean annual
flow
>0-5%. decrease in WUA or if WUA not available,
then 80-100% of the mean annual flow
0% or an increase in WUA or if WUA not
available, then 100 or >100% of the mean
annual flow
Weighted usable area and mean annual flows generated from the
applicants' information can be used to assign the impact
values (0, 1, 2, 3, or 4) for increasing levels of impact.
When using the percentage of the mean annual flow, impacts
levels were adjusted downward by 1 unit of impact (e.g., 3 to
2) if only a limited amount of anadromous fish habitat was
available and by 2 if there was no or very little anadromous
fish habitat present.
Where possible, impact levels were assigned using information
from approved instream flow modeling study results. If the
study results were not available or not approved, then the
percentage of the mean annual flow was used to assign impact
levels.
6-32
-------
Table 6.14: Interaction Coefficients and Criteria for the
Migration/Movement Component of the Chinook Salmon Interaction
Matrix (Irving and Bain, 1993)
Interaction
Coefficient
0.0
0.1
0.5
1.0
Criteria
No project interaction on
migration/movement of target
resource
Project interaction on
migration/movement possible but not
likely to occur with negligible
impact to target resource
Project interaction on
migration/movement likely to occur
with low to moderate potential
impact to target resource
Project interaction on
migration/movement likely to occur
with high or severe potential impact
to target resource
6-33
-------
Figure 6.5:
Example of Cumulative Impact Computation* for a Target
Resource with Three Resource Components and Two Projects
(Irving and Bain, 1993)
6-34
-------
and Bain, 1993). The same importance weights are shown for three resource
•components so the component matrix and adjusted component matrix are the
same. The adjusted component matrix is summed across resources components
to derive the weighted sums for each of the two projects. An interaction
matrix was used to derive an interaction effects matrix, which is then
summed across resources components to derive the interaction effects sum.
The cumulative effects for each project are accounted for by adding the
weighted and interaction effects sums. A total cumulative impact score
is derived by adding across projects, and this score (11.4) can be used as
a relative index of cumulative impact for the two—project configuration.
SELECTED REFERENCES
Adamus, P.R., Clairain, E.J., Smith, R.D., and Young, R.E., "Wetland
Evaluation Technique — Volume II — Methodology," 1987, U.S. Army Corps
of Engineers, Waterways Experiment Station, Vicksburg, Mississippi.
Anderson, M.G., and Burt, T.P., "Modelling Strategies," Ch. 1 in
Hvdroloaical Forecasting. Anderson, M.G., and Burt, T.P., editors, John
Wiley and Sons, Ltd., New York, New York, 1985, pp. 1-13.
Brinson, M.M., "Strategies for Assessing the Cumulative Effects of Wetland
Alteration on Water Quality," Journal of Environmental Management. Vol.
12, No. 5, 1988, pp. 655-662.
Bunch, J.N., and Reeves, R.R., editors, Proceedings of a Workshop on the
Potential Cumulative Impacts of Development in the Region of Hudson and
James Bays. Canadian Technical Report of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences
No. 1874, August, 1992, Department of Fisheries and Oceans, Ottawa,
Ontario, Canada.
Canter, L.W., "Cumulative Effects and Other Analytical Challenges of
NEPA," Ch. 8, Environmental Policy and NEPA; Past. Present, and Future.
Clark, E.R., and Canter, L.W., editors, St. Lucie Press, Delray Beach,
Florida, 1997a, pp. 115-137.
Canter, L.W., Environmental Impact Assessment, revised edition, McGraw-
Hill Publishing Company, Inc., New York, New York, 1995b, in press, 660
pages.
Canter, L.W., "Scientific Uncertainty and the Environmental Impact
Assessment Process in the United States," Ch. 10, Scientific Uncertainty
and Its Implications for Applied Problem-Solving. Lemons, J., editor,
Blackwell Scientific Publications, Inc., Cambridge, Massachusetts, 1996,
pp. 298-326.
Canter, L.W., Atkinson, S.F., and Leistritz, F.L., imnaet of Growth. Lewis
Publishers, Inc., Chelsea, Michigan, 1985.
Contant, C.K., and Wiggins, L.L., "Toward Defining and Assessing
Cumulative Impacts: Practical and Theoretical Considerations,"
Environmental Analysis — The NEPA Experience. Hildebrand, S.G., and
Cannon, J.B., editors, Lewis Publishers, Inc., Boca Raton, Florxda, 1993,
pp. 336-356.
Cooper, T.A., "Cumulative Impact Assessment Practice in the United
States," MES Thesis, 1995, University of Oklahoma, Norman, Oklahoma, pp.
136-168.
6-35
-------
Court, J.D., Wright, C.J., and Guthrie, A.C., "Assessment of Cumulative
Impacts and Strategic Assessment in Environmental Impact Assessment,"
1994, Commonwealth Environment Protection Agency, Barton, Australia.
Culhane, P.J., Friesema, H.P., and Beecher, J.A., Forecasts and
Environmental Decision Making, Hestview Press, Inc., Boulder, Colorado,
1987, pp. 81-97.
Drouin, C., and LeBlanc, P., "The Canadian Environmental Assessment Act
and Cumulative Environmental Effects," Ch. 3, Cumulative Effects
Assessment in Canada; From Concept to Practice. Kennedy, A.J., editor,
Alberta Association of Professional Biologists, Edmonton, Alberta, Canada,
1994, pp. 25-36.
Duncan, B.W., and Schmalrer, P.A., "Using a Geographical Information
System for Monitoring Space Shuttle Launches: Determining Cumulative
Distribution of Deposition and an Empirical Test of a Spatial Model,"
Environmental Management. Vol. 18, No. 3, 1994, pp. 465-474.
Eccles, R., Green, J., Morgan, R., and Kennedy, A.J., "Approaches to
Cumulative Effects Assessment of Petroleum Development in Alberta," Ch.
15, Cumulative Effects Assessment in Canada; From Concept to Practice.
Kennedy, A.J., editor, Alberta Association of Professional Biologists,
Edmonton, Alberta, Canada, 1994, pp. 189-196.
Eckberg, O.K., "Cumulative Impacts of Hydropower Development Under NEPA,"
Environmental Law. Vol. 16, No. 3, Spring, 1986, pp. 673-703.
Emery, R.M., "Impact Interaction Potential: A Basin-wide Algorithm for
Assessing Cumulative Impacts from Hydropower Projects," Journal of
Environmental Management. Vol. 23, No. 4, December, 1986, pp. 341-360.
Environmental Resources Limited, "Environmental Impact Assessment —
Techniques for Predicting Effects in EIA," Vol. 2, February, 1982, London,
England.
Environmental Resources, Ltd., "Prediction in EIA," March, 1984, London,
England, (report submitted to the Ministry of Public Housing, Physical
Planning and Environmental Affairs, and the Ministry of Agriculture and
Fisheries of The Netherlands).
ESSA Technologies Ltd., "Cumulative Effects of Development in the Slave
Geological Province," 1994, Indian and Northern Affairs Canada,
Yellowknife, Northwest Territories, Canada.
David Evans and Associates, Inc., "Commencement Bay Cumulative Impact
Study: Historic Review of Special Aquatic Sites," 1991, Seattle District,
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Seattle, Washington.
Hemond, H.F., and Benoit, J., "Cumulative Impacts on Water Quality
Functions of Wetlands," Environmental Management. Vol. 12, No. 5, 1988,
pp. 639-653.
Henderson-Sellers, B., Water Quality Modeling — Vol. IV — Decision
Support Techniques for Lakes and Reservoirs. CRC Press, Boca Raton,
Florida, 1991.
Hochberg, R.J., Friday, M.A., and Stroup, C.F., "Review of Technical
Approaches for Cumulative Ecological Impact Assessment," PPRP-109,
December, 1993, Maryland Department of Natural Resources, Power Plant and
Environmental Review Division, Annapolis, Maryland, pp. 1-16.
6-36
-------
Irving, J.S., and Bain, M.B., "Assessing Cumulative Impact on Pish and
Wildlife in the Salmon River Basin, Idaho," Environmental Analysis — The
NEPA Experience. Hildebrand, S.G., and Cannon, J.B., editors, Lewis
Publishers, Inc., Boca Raton, Florida, 1993, pp. 357-372.
Irving, J.S., and Bain, M.B., "Assessing Cumulative Impact on Fish and
Wildlife in the Salmon River Basin, Idaho," Conf-8910325-1, presented at
Ninth Oak Ridge National Laboratory Life Science Symposium entitled "The
Scientific Challenges of NEPA: Future Directions Based on 20 Years of
Experience, October 24-27, 1989, Knoxville, Tennessee.
James, A., editor, An Introduction to Water Quality Modeling. John Wiley
and Sons, Ltd., West Sussex, England, 1993.
Johnston, C.A., "Cumulative Impacts to Wetlands," Wetlands. Vol. 14, No.
1, March, 1994, pp. 49-55.
Johnston, C.A., Detenbeck, N.E., Bonde, J.P., and Niemi, G.J., "Geographic
Information Systems for Cumulative Impact Assessment," Photoarammetric
Engineering and Remote Sensing. Vol. 54, No. 11, November, 1988, pp. 1609-
1615.
King, T.F., "The Archaeological Survey: Methods and Uses," 1978, Heritage
Conservation and Recreation Service, U.S. Department of the Interior,
Washington, D.C.
LaGory, K.E., Stull, E.A., and Vinikour, W.S., "Proposed Methodology to
Assess Cumulative Impacts of Hydroelectric Development in the Columbia
River Basin," Environmental Analysis — The NEPA Experience. Hildebrand,
S.G., and Cannon, J.B., editors, Lewis Publishers, Inc., Boca Raton,
Florida, 1993, pp. 408-423.
Lindskov, K.L., "Potential Effects of Anticipated Coal Mining on Salinity
of the Price, San Raphael, and Green Rivers, Utah," Water Resources
Investigations Report 86-4019, 1986, U.S. Geological Survey, Salt Lake
City, Utah.
Lee, L.C., and Gosselink, J.G., "Cumulative Impacts on Wetlands: Linking
Scientific Assessments and Regulatory Alternatives," Environmental
Management. Vol. 12, No. 5, 1988, pp. 591-602.
Leibowitz, S.G., Abbruzzese, B., Adamus, P.R., Hughes, L.E., and Irish,
J.T., "A Synoptic Approach to Cumulative Impact Assessment — A Proposed
Methodology," EPA/600/R-92/167, October, 1992, U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Environmental Research Laboratory, Corvallis, Oregon,
pp. 3-7.
Magrab, E.B., Environmental Noise Control. John Wiley and Sons, New York,
New York, 1975.
Mitchell, A.f et al., "Handbook for Forecasting Techniques," IWR Contract
'Report 75-7, December, 1975, U.S. Army Engineer Institute for Water
Resources, Fort Belvior, Virginia, pp. 3-37, 42-43, 65-67, 85-90, 108-109,
122-123, 139-140, 155-156, 173-174, 190-193, 206-210, 234-238, and
249-254.
Myslicki, A., "Use of Programmatic EISs in Support of Cumulative Impact
Assessment," Environmental Analysis -- The NEPA Experience. Hildebrand,
S.G., and Cannon, J.B., editors, Lewis Publishers, Inc., Boca Raton,
Florida, 1993, pp. 373-390.
6-37
-------
Nestler, J.M., and Long, K.S., "Cumulative Impact Analysis of Wetlands:
Hydrologic Indices," Technical Report WRP-SM-3, September, 1994, U.S. Army
Corps of Engineers Waterways Experiment Station, Vicksburg, Mississippi.
O'Neil, T.A., and Witmer, G.W., "Assessing Cumulative Impacts to Elk and
Mule Deer in the Salmon River Basin, Idaho," Conf-8805180-1, presented at
the International Conference on Ungulate Behavior and Management, May 23-
26, 1988, College Station, Texas.
Ray, G.L., "A Conceptual Framework for the Evaluation of Coastal
Habitats," Technical Report EL-94-3, February, 1994, U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers Waterways Experiment Station, Vicksburg, Mississippi.
Reid, L.M.:, "Research and Cumulative Watershed Effects," General Technical
Report PSW-GTR-141, 1993, Pacific Southwest Research Station, U.S. Forest
Service, Albany, California, pp. vii, 13, 20, 25-35, and 52-57.
Risser, P.G., "General Concepts for Measuring Cumulative Impacts on
Wetland Ecosystems," Environmental Management. Vol. 12, No. 5, 1988, pp.
585-589.
Roots, E.F., "Closing Remarks: A Current Assessment of Cumulative
Assessment," Proceedings of the Workshop on Cumulative Environmental
Effects: A Bi-National Perspective. 1986, Canadian Environmental
Assessment Research Council, Hull, Quebec, Canada, pp. 149-160.
Rumrill, J.N., and Canter, L.W., "Air Quality Effects in KEPA Documents —
Project-Specific and Cumulative Considerations," Journal of Environmental
Planning and Management, in press, 1998.
Saylor, R.E., and McCold, L.N., "Bounding Analyses in NEPA Documents:
Where Are They Appropriate?," The Environmental Professional. Vol. 16, No.
4, December, 1994, pp. 285-291.
Southerland, M.T., Roth, N.E., Shaw, S.K., and Klauda, R.J., "Establishing
A Cumulative Effects Baseline for Watershed Impact Assessment and
Restoration." The Environmental Professional. Vol. 19, 1997, pp. 98-108.
Spaling, H., "Cumulative Effects Assessment: Concepts and Principles,"
Impact Assessment. Vol. 12, No. 3, Fall 1994, pp. 231-251.
Stevenson, W.W., "Cumulative Effects Assessment in EA: An Indicators
Approach," presented to Ontario Society for Environmental Management, May
31, 1994, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada.
Stull, E.A., LaGory, K.E., and Vinikour, W.S., "Methodologies for
Assessing the Cumulative Environmental Effects of Hydroelectric
Development on Fish and Wildlife in the Columbia River Basin, Vol. 2:
Example and Procedural Guidelines," 1987, Argonne National Laboratory,
Argonne, Illinois.
Stull, E.A., Bain, M.B., Irving, J.S., LaGory, K.E., and Witmer, B.W.,
"Methodologies for Assessing the Cumulative Environmental Effects of
Hydroelectric Development on Fish and Wildlife in the Columbia River
Basin, Vol. 1: Recommendations," July 1, 1987a, Argonne National
Laboratory, Argonne, Illinois, pp. 75-78, 110-113, and 126-139.
Turnbull, R.G., editor, Environmental and Health Impact Assessment of
Development Projects. Elsevier Science Publishers, Ltd., London, England,
1992.
6-38
-------
Turner, D.B., Workbook of Atmospheric Dispersion Estimates. Second
Edition, Lewis Publishers, Inc., Boca Raton, Florida, 1994.
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, "Water Quality Models Used by the Corps of
Engineers," Information Exchange Bulletin, Vol. E-B7-1, March, 1987,
Waterways Experiment Station, Vicksburg, Mississippi.
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, "A Habitat Evaluation System for Water
Resources Planning," August, 1980, Lower Mississippi Valley Division,
Vicksburg, Mississippi.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, "Guideline on Air Quality Models
(Revised)," EPA-450/2-78-027R, 1993, 40 Code of Federal Regulations,
Chapter 1, Part 51, Appendix W, pp. 962-969, and 1003-1012.
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, "Habitat Evaluation Procedures (HEP)," ESM
102, March, 1980, Washington, D.C.
Vestal, B., Rieser, A., Ludwig, M., Kurland, J., Collins, C., and Ortiz,
J., "Methodologies and Mechanisms for Management of Cumulative Coastal
Environmental Impacts — Part I: Synthesis, with Annotated Bibliography,
and Part II: Development and Application of a Cumulative Impacts
Assessment Protocol," NOAA Coastal Ocean Program Decision Analysis Series
No. 6, September, 1995, Coastal Ocean Office, National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, Silver Spring,
Maryland, pp. xxi-xxvii and 125-135 in Part I, and pp. 1-10 and 31-35 in
Part II.
Walker, D.A., Webber, P.J., Binnian, E.F., Everett, K.R., Lederer, N.D.,
Nordstrand, E.A., and Walker, M.D., "Cumulative Impacts of Oil Fields on
Northern Alaskan Landscapes," Science. Vol. 238, November 6, 1987, pp.
757-761.
Water Resources Council, "Economic and Environmental Guidelines for Water
and Related Land Resources Implementation Studies — Ch. 3 —
Environmental Quality (EQ) Procedures," March 10, 1983, Washington, D.C.
Water Science and Technology Board, Ground Water Models — Scientific and
Regulatory Applications. National Academy Press, Washington, D.C., 1990.
Weller, M.W., "Issues and Approaches in Assessing Cumulative Impacts on
Waterbird Habitat in Wetlands," Environmental Management. Vol. 12, Ho. 5,
1988, pp. 695-701.
Winter, T.C., "A Conceptual Framework for Assessing Cumulative Impacts on
the Hydrology of Non-Tidal Wetlands," Environmental Management. Vol. 12,
No. 5, 1988, pp. 605-620.
Witmer, G.W., and O*Neil, T.A., "Assessing Cumulative Impacts to Wintering
Bald Eagles and Their Habitats in Western Washington," Conf-8806163-1,
presented at Ecosystem Management Conference: Rare Species and Significant
Habitats, June 6-9, 1988, State University of New York, Syracuse, New
York.
World Health Organization, "Assessment of Noise Impact on the Urban
Environment," Environmental Health Series No. 9, 1986, Regional Office for
Europe, Copenhagen, Denmark.
6-39
-------
CHAPTER 7
STRATEGIC ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND
CUMULATIVE EFFECTS CONSIDERATIONS
Since its inception in the United States in 1970, the environmental
impact assessment (EIA) process has been primarily applied to development
projects proposed for specific locations; such applications will be
referred to herein as project-level EIA. An emerging issue in the 1990s
ha* been the application of the EIA process to policies, plans, and
programs. The resulting documentations of these types of applications in
the United States are called "programmatic environmental impact statements
(EISs)"; the term being used internationally is strategic environmental
assessment (SEA). This chapter summarizes the practices and experiences
to date regarding SEA, including the incorporation of cumulative effects
assessment (CEA). The majority of the assembled information was derived
from publications generated outside the United States.
This chapter begins with definitions and concepts related to SEA,
and the delineation of, similarities and differences between SEAs and
project-level El As used to generate project-oriented EISs (environmental
impact statements). Examples of a variety of types of SEAs are then
addressed. Substantive sections in this chapter are then devoted to
planning a SEA and potentially useful methods for conducting a SEA and
including CEA. The advantages and limitations (barriers) of SEA are then
summarized along with several research needs. A conclusions section ends
this chapter.
DEFINITIONS AND CONCEPTS
SEA refers to a systematic process for evaluating the direct,
indirect, and cumulative environmental consequences of proposed policy,
plan or program initiatives in order to ensure they are fully included and
appropriately addressed at the earliest appropriate stage of decision
making on par with economic and social considerations (Sadler and Verheem,
1996). In this context, policy refers to a general course of action or
proposed overall direction that a government is, or will be, pursuing and
which guides ongoing decision making. The definition of a plan is that it
is a purposeful, forward-looking strategy or design, often with
coordinated priorities, options and measures, that elaborates and
implements policy. Finally, a program denotes a coherent, organized
agenda or schedule of commitments, proposals, instruments and/or
activities that elaborates and implements policy (Sadler and Verheem,
1996).
In an earlier publication, SEA was defined as the formalised
systematic and comprehensive process of evaluating the environmental
impacts of a policy, plan or program and its alternatives, including the
preparation of a written report on the findings of that evaluation, and
using the findings in publicly accountable decision-making (Therivel, et
al., 1992). In this context, policies, plans, and programs are often
referred to as PPPs (Therivel, et al., 1992).
Lee and Walsh (1992) suggested that two issues contributed to the
growing interest in SEA in the late 1980s and early 1990s; they are: (1)
a growing recognition that some important aspects of the EIA process,
including attention to cumulative effects, cannot be satisfactorily
7-1
-------
undertaken at the project evaluation stage and must, therefore, be carried
out at earlier stages in the planning process; and (2) an increasing
appreciation that the implementation of sustainable development strategies
will require the use of EIA procedures and methods in the formulation of
policies, plans and programs for the principal sectors of national
economies.
From a broader perspective. Wood and Dejeddour (1992) identified the
following four opportunities for more effective environmental planning
which could be realized via the planning and conduction of SEAs:
(1) SEA can help give environmental concerns an importance similar
to that of other aspects of development (e.g., economic,
market requirement, financial and technological) in
decisionroaking. It can encourage decisionmakers to articulate
environmental goals along with social and economic goals.
(2) SEA can facilitate and increase consultation on environmental
aspects, including cumulative effects, between the many
organizations generally involved in the formulation of
policies, plans and programs. It also can provide the
opportunity to determine the views of the general public on
the nature of future developments which may concern them
because of potential environmental implications. External
scrutiny of proposals should itself result in greater public
pressure for the integration of environmental concerns.
(3) In certain cases (e.g., some land-use plans), SEA may make
project EIA redundant if impacts have been examined
sufficiently at the plan or program level. In other cases,
only a selected number of impacts may be examined, leaving
others for the project stage.
(4) Principles regarding mitigation and compensation measures can
be formulated for certain types of development as a result of
SEA. These can be embodied in codes of conduct for various
types of development.
Many types of PPPs could be subjected to SEAs. To facilitate
consideration of this issue, a logical grouping of types of SEAs would be
desirable. Accordingly, Therivel, et al. (1992) suggested that SEAs could
be divided into three types: (1) sectoral; (2) regional; and (3) indirect.
In some classifications, policy-related SEAs are delineated as a fourth
type. Examples of sectoral SEAs include those for waste disposal, water
supply, agriculture, forestry, energy, recreation, and transport.
Regional SEA examples include those for regional plans, metropolitan/city
plans, community plans, redevelopment plans, and rural plans. Examples of
indirect SEAs include those for such "indirect" PPPs as science and
technology, financial/fiscal policies, and justice/enforcement.
Illustrations of specific concerns and case studies related to these types
of SEAs are included in a subsequent section of this chapter.
SEAs should be considered within the overall context of impact
studies related to PPPs and project-level EIA. To illustrate the
relationships, Figure 7.1 depicts a tiered system of planning and
environmental impact studies (Lee and Walsh, 1992). This system has
general applicability; however, it should be recognized that it was
developed based on land use and environmental planning practices in the
United Kingdom.
7-2
-------
itTp.0/,
U«el of pmra
(SEA)
(SEA)
(SEA)
SEA)
dAJ
Manl
Nawml
pofier
Lonf-i
fauOdmc
ReponaV
Sow
Sub.
regional
Regional
T
T
Local
KB. Tha » • •ngutiad iiliiMiiillim trf %fcM. in igatey. tntH !• • •
cici) are likely to nqgn dw hniiW m* tmm dMiikd form at
Figure 7.1:
Actions and ABsesBments Within a Tier«d Planning
and Environmental Assessment System (Lee and
Walsh, 1992).
7-3
-------
Broader planning studies such as those related to sustainable
development should also be considered in relation to SEAs. For example,
Figure 7.2 depicts a variety of relationships between project-level EIA,
CEA, SEA, land use planning and sustainability studies (Sadler and
Verheem, 1996). The depicted linkages may vary from country-to-country;
however, the primary point is that SEAs can be influenced by, and in turn,
influence, other types of planning efforts and studies.
COMPARISONS OF SEAs AND PROJECT-LEVEL EIA3
There are several means by which SEAs and project-level EIAs can be
compared. For example, Figure 7.3 delineates the principal stages in the
SEA process and the project-level EIA process (Lee and Walsh, 1992).
While many similarities exist, there are also distinctions; examples of
such distinctions include:
(1) the scale of a SEA (in terms of action and related activities,
range of considered alternatives, geographical area of study,
and range of pertinent direct, indirect, and cumulative
impacts) tends to be greater than that of an EIA;
(2) the time interval between conducting a SEA and implementation
of specific activities is typically longer than for an EIA;
(3) the technical content and specificity of a SEA will be in
lesser detail than for an EIA; and
(4) impact prediction uncertainties will be greater for a SEA than
for an EIA.
As shown in Table 7.1, Wiseman (1996) has summarized several points
of comparison between project-level EIA and SEA, including the perspective
that CEA and sustainable development considerations are more appropriate
for SEA. The overall impression given is that SEA is broader in scope and
used for strategic planning, while project-level EIA addresses specific
issues and impacts at specific locations. The relationships between these
types of assessments and other topics such as environmental management
systems and monitoring are shown in Figure 7.4 (Wiseman, 1996).
EXAMPLES OF SEA REQUIREMENTS AND SEAs
This section is intended to provide illustrations of countries with
SEA requirements, and to identify various features and case studies
related to several types of SEAs.
Institutional Requirements
Several countries or states within countries have either direct or
indirect requirements related to SEAs; examples of states include Western
Australia, South Australia, and California (Sadler and Verheem, 1996;
McCarthy, 1996; and Bass and Herson, 1996). Examples of countries with
requirements include Australia, Canada, The Netherlands, New Zealand, the
United Kingdom, and the United States of America (Sadler and Verheem,
1996). The requirements can be based on legislation, administrative
orders or directives, or advisory guidelines or operational policy. Table
7.2 lists examples of countries with direct or indirect SEA requirements;
the identified references provide information on specific features of the
requirements.
7-4
-------
Figure 7.2:
Linkages Between El A, SEA, and Related Studies
(Sadler and Verheem, 1996)
7-5
-------
2E&
*••« kf
I
••SEA
7.
HA>c
1^
L.
BA
• to
i OSfci
Icrfoi
Figure 7.3:
Comparison of the Principal Stages in tha SEA and
EIA Processes (Lee and Walsh, 1992)
7-6
-------
Table 7.1: Comparative Features of Project-Level EIA and SZA
(Wiseman, 1996)
EIA
Is reactive to a development
proposal
Assesses the effect of a proposed
development on the environment
Addresses a specific project
Has a well defined beginning and
end
Assesses direct impacts and
benefits
Focused on the mitigation of
impacts
Narrow perspective and a high
level of detail
Focus on project-specific impacts
SEA
Is pro-active and informs
development proposals
Assess the effect of the
environment on development needs
and opportunities (t<.-\-r+f^- v*s)
Addresses area, regions or
sectors of development
Is a continuing process aimed at
providing information at the
right time
Assesses cumulative impacts and
identifies implications and
issues for sustainable
development
Focused on maintaining a chosen
level of environmental quality
Wide perspective and a low level
of detail to provide a vision and
overall framework
Creates a framework against which
impacts and benefits can be
measured
7-7
-------
Project-specific
Environmental Management
Systems
Monitoring and data collection
*«her tereb such as
ctors of
new pobcics
or proposed legislation.
proposals and projects
Comcructm and
operation of
Feo»«t whither
fcrea.
Figure 7.4:
Relationships Between SEA and Project-Specific
Activities (Wiseman, 1996)
7-8
-------
Table 7.2: Examples of Countries with SEA Requirements
Country
Australia
Canada
Denmark
European Commission
(12 member countries)
Finland
France
Germany
Greece
Kong Kong
Ireland
Italy
Luxembourg
The Netherlands
New Zealand
Portugal
Spain
Sweden
United Kingdom
United States of America
Reference
Wood (1992)
Partidario (1996)
Partidario (1996)
Sadler and Verheem (1996)
Partidario (1996)
Sadler and Verheem (1996)
Sadler and Verheem (1996)
Partidario (1996)
Partidario (1996)
Therivel, et al. (1992)
Partidario (1996)
Therivel, et al. (1992)
Hong Kong Government (1995)
Sadler and Verheem (1996)
Therivel, et al. (1992)
Therivel, et al. (1992)
Therivel, et al. (1992)
Verheem (1992)
Therivel, et al. (1992)
Partidario (1996)
Sadler and Verheem (1996)
Wood (1992)
Partidario (1996)
Sadler and Verheem (1996)
Therivel, et al. (1992)
Therivel, et al. (1992)
Partidario (1996)
Therivel, et al. (1992)
Partidario (1996)
Sadler and Verheem (1996)
Sigal and Webb (1989)
Webb and Sigal (1992)
Bass and Herson (1996)
Partidario (1996)
Sadler and Verheem (1996)
7-9
-------
Policy-focused SEAs
A workshop was held in The Netherlands in late 1994 for the purpose
of discussing experiences related to SEAs of policies (de Boer and Sadler,
1996). Collective experiences from Canada (Le Blanc and Fischer, 1996),
Denmark (Elling, 1996; and Johansen, 1996), the European Commission
(Norris, 1996), Hong Kong (Law, 1996), The Netherlands (de Vries, 1996),
New Zealand (Gow, 1996), and Western Australia (Sippe, 1996) were
summarized and discussed relative to both the advantages and limitations
of SEAs of policies. An alternate name for a policy-focused SEA is a
policy impact assessment (PIA) (Boothroyd, 1995).
The following objectives have been identified for policy-focused
SEAs (Therivel, et al., 1992):
(1) to ensure the full consideration of alternative policy
options, including the 'do-nothing' option, at an early time
when an agency has greater flexibility;
(2) to enable consistency to be developed across different policy
sectors, especially where trade-offs need to be made between
objectives;
(3) to ensure that the cumulative, indirect or secondary impacts
of diverse multiple activities are considered, including their
unintended consequences;
(4) to enable adverse environmental impacts to be anticipated and
hence avoided or prevented;
(5) to ensure that the environmental impact of policies that do
not have an overt environmental dimension is assessed;
(6) to obviate the needless reassessment of issues and impacts at
the project level where such issues could more effectively be
dealt with at a strategic level, and offer time and cost
savings;
(7) to provide a publicly available and accountable decision-
making framework;
(8) to ensure that environmental principles such as sustainability
and the precautionary principle are integrated into the
development, appraisal and selection of policy options; and
(9) to give a proper place to environmental considerations in
decision-making vis-i-vis economic and social concerns, given
that in some contexts they may be traded off against each
other.
Sectoral-focused SEAs
Examples of sectoral-focused SEAs include those related to national
(or regional) energy plans, irrigation schemes, agricultural productivity
enhancement programs, transportation plans, coal or other mineral mining
strategies, oil and/or gas development activities, and waste management
efforts.
The World Bank has utilized sectoral SEAs in the context of loan
applications for sector investment programs involving multiple sub-
projects. Sectoral environmental assessments within World Bank usage are
7-10
-------
conceptually similar to programmatic EISs in the United States (World
Bank, 1991). Examples of the potential advantages of such SEAs include
(World Bank, 1993):
(1) Sectoral SEAs can prevent serious environmental impacts
through analysis of sector policies and investment strategies
upstream in the planning process, before major decisions are
made.
(2) They can assist governments in forming a long-term view of the
sector and can increase the transparency of the sectoral
planning process (that is, show the reasoning behind
development plans), thereby decreasing the opportunities for
purely political decisions that might be environmentally
harmful.
(3) They provide opportunities for consideration of alternative
policies, plans, strategies or project types, taking into
account their costs and benefits.
(4) Sectoral SEAs can help to alter or eliminate environmentally
unsound investment alternatives at an early stage, thus
reducing overall negative environmental impacts.
(5) They are well-suited to consider cumulative effects of
multiple ongoing and planned investments within a sector, as
well as impacts from existing policies and policy changes.
(6) They are valuable for collecting and organizing environmental
data into information and, in the process, identifying data
gaps and needs at an early stage, and for outlining methods,
schedules and responsibilities for data collection and
management during program or project implementation.
(7) They allow for comprehensive planning of general sector-wide
mitigation, management, and monitoring measures, and for
identifying broad institutional, resource and technological
needs at an early stage.
The topics which should be addressed in a sectoral SEA prepared for
the World Bank are listed in Table 7.3 (World Bank, 1993).
Geographically-focused SEAs
The World Bank has suggested that Regional Environmental Assessment*
(REAs) (another name for SEAs) can be useful for development planners in
designing investment strategies, programs and projects that are
environmentally sustainable (World Bank, 1996). The focus is on
environmental issues and impacts in a distinctly spatial setting.
Examples of regions include river basins, airsheds, mountainous areas,
forested areas, coastal zones, islands, and urban areas.
To illustrate one type of region, coastal areas can be exploited for
food, energy, and material resources. Land uses near the coastal zone
should be planned to minimize undesirable impacts to area resources, while
also allowing for tourism and other appropriate economic developments.
These planning efforts can be facilitated by the conduction of SEAs
focused on defined geographical areas encompassing both land and water
resources; the World Bank refers to these SEAs as Regional Environmental
Assessments (World Bank, 1994). The SEAs can be complementary and
7-11
-------
Table 7.3: Topics to be Addressed in a World Bank sectoral SEA
(World Bank, 1993)
Executive Summary. At in • project-specific EIA, • SEA should conuin »n executive summary, with i concise discussion of
significant findings and recommended actions.
Policy. Leril «nd Administrative Framework. This section is one of the most important pans of a sectoral SEA. It is helpful to
analyze both (1) the national environmental legal, regulatory and institutional framework, and (i) sector-specific policies, regulations
and institutions.
• The national framework. The relevant national environmental policies, laws and regulations should be assessed
for completeness and appropriateness in light of the particular conditions and problems of the sector, and gaps
and weaknesses noted. Non-environmenul laws and policies that have significance for the sector's utilization
of resources, production processes, or pollution should also be identified. Similarly, the national regulatory
framework for EIA preparation and review should be assessed. The SEA should look closely at the institutional
capacity of the main environmental ministry or agency, in terms of effectiveness and capacity for providing
guideline*, selling and enforcing standards, and reviewing environmental assessments. The capacity and
performance of agencies responsible for specific environmental services such as nature protection and cultural
heritage should also be reviewed when relevant.
• The sector framework. The SEA should analyze sector-specific policies, laws and regulations that have
environmental implications. It should also identify how environmental responsibilities are distributed among
(public or private) sector institutions and assess their capacity to administer these tasks. The sectoral investment
planning process, in terms of objectives, methodology and procedures for review and approval of plans and
projects, should be carefully reviewed. The relationship between timing of project review, issuance of licenses
and permits, and the sectoral planning process should be clearly indicated. The SEA should assess whether
environmental and social issues are adequately covered by current procedures.
Project Description. The nature and objectives of the program, plan, series of projects or other context to which the SEA is attached
should be described, and the main environmental issues associated with the sector and these programs, identified.
Baseline Data. This section should describe and evaluate the current environmental situation in the sector. Where a project-specific
EIA would describe conditions such as ambient air and water quality or existing impacts from pollution around a proposed project
site, the SEA should concentrate on the issues and problems that are typical of the sector as a whole. For example, occupational
health may be a concern across enterprises within a specific industry; seepage of heavy metals into streams and groundwater may
be a recurring problem in the mining sector; or deforestation may result from activities in the agriculture sector. Another important
function of this section is to note major data gaps.
Environmental Impacts. The single most difficult challenge in SEAs is to produce a sufficiently precise impact analysis, often in the
face of uncertainties related to the final investment decisions and their individual and combined impacts. In recent years, advances
have been made in the methodologies for assessing cumulative impacts, in relation to development plans and programs. Means
include quantitative modeling, forecasting and various qualitative analyses. If any proposed sub-project is expected to cause
particularly significant impacts, the SEA should recommend an appropriate course of action to address them, including carrying out
a project-specific EIA.
All cumulative effects should be considered: positive and negative, direct and indirect, long-term and short-term.
Aggregate problems such as sewage discharge, acid rain, ozone depletion and deforestation are usually the result of several activities.
sometimes stemming predominantly from a single sector. Cumulative impacts on environmentally important and sensitive areas and
assets such as coastal zones and wetlands, or freshwater resources, are also important in cases where the sector activities heavily affect
these areas and/or resources.
The sectoral SEA is an appropriate instrument for considering issues related to long-term sustainable development.
Specifically, the SEA may contain a discussion of how a proposed investment program may influence long-term productivity of
environmental resources affected by the program.
Analysis of Alternatives. A major purpose of • SEA is to do a thorough analysis of alternative investment options and strategies in
terms of environmental costs and benefits. The sectoral SEA can also be used to evaluate the environmental effects of sector policy
alternatives. For example, changes in tax and subsidy rue* on the use of natural resources may greatly influence rates and methods
of extraction.
7-12
-------
Table 7.3 (continued):
The analysis could conclude with • list of sector propouls, ranked according to environmental preference. The analysis
of impacts and alternatives should result in • recommendation for an optimal investment strategy, in terms of environmental and soc nl
costs and benefits.
Mitigation Plan. Mitigation measures ire usually of a detailed, technical nature, and therefore, normally addressed in project-specific
EIAs. However, if planned or existing production and process technologies in a sector are relatively uniform, the SEA could
recommend broad options for eliminating, reducing to acceptable levels, or mitigating environmental impacts. Such solutions could
include a complete production system design as well as end-of-pipe cleaning technologies. SEA mitigation recommendations should
draw on findings from the analysis of policy, legal and institutional issues as well as the analysis of impacts and alternatives.
Environmental Management and Training. One of the main outputs of a SEA should be an institutional plan for improving
environmental management in the sector, baaed on findings of the previous sections. The plan might recommend training of existing
staff, hiring of additional staff, reorganization of units or agencies, or redefinition of roles and responsibilities.
Environmental Monitoring Plan. The SEA should provide general guidelines for long-term sector-wide environmental monitoring
to ensure adequate implementation of investments. A monitoring plan should use the finding* of the baseline data section as a basis
to measure progress in midterm review and final evaluation. The plan should also recommend measures needed to collect and
organize missing data.
Public Consultation. Public consultation is an integral pan of the E1A process, whether a project-specific or sectoral E1A is being
prepared.
7-13
-------
supportive of coastal zone management plans (or planning efforts). Of
particular concern in SEAs may be detrimental impacts or unique ecosystems
such as coral reefs, coastal wetlands, mangrove areas, seagrasses, muddy
and sandy bottoms, and rocky coasts (World Bank, 1994).
Some useful purposes which can be accomplished through the planning
and conduction of regional environmental assessments are (World Bank,
1991):
(1) the definition of study areas in terms which make
environmental sense (e.g., river basin, airshed, coastal
zone);
(2) selection of sustainable development patterns from
alternatives in a region under development pressure (e.g., the
coastal zone), or being programmed for development for the
first time;
(3) identification of cumulative effects of different activities,
and design or implementation of schedule changes and other
measures to avoid or mitigate them;
(4) identification of environmental interactions or conflicting
demands on resources among projects in which the impacts of
one project may reduce the benefits of another, and of
measures to avoid such a result;
(5) formulation of criteria for environmentally sustainable
development in the region, including treatment of
environmentally sensitive areas and resources, site selection
criteria, design criteria, region-specific measures to
mitigate adverse impacts, and land-use planning guidelines;
(6) identification of monitoring data needs and definition of data
collection programs to support EIA, CEA, and development
decisions; and
(7) examination of policy alternatives and institutional elements
needed for achieving sustainable development in the region.
Examples of potential benefits of REAs include (World Bank, 1996):
(1) provide a baseline overview of environmental conditions within
the study area (a regional "state of the environment"), which
is key to making reliable assessments of direct, indirect, and
cumulative effects and monitoring environmental changes over
time;
(2) assist governments in forming a long-term view of regional
planning and increase the transparency of the planning
process, thereby modifying or eliminating decisions that might
be individually or cumulatively harmful to the environment;
(3) analyze the institutional and legal framework relevant to the
particular region, identify institutional and jurisdictional
gaps, and make recommendations regarding, for example,
environmental standards and law enforcement appropriate for
the region;
(4) suitably collect and organize regional environmental data and,
in the process, identify data gaps and needs at an early
stage, and outline methods, schedules and responsibilities for
7-14
-------
data collection and management during program or project
implementation;
(5) allow for comprehensive planning of region-wide environmental
management and monitoring, and identify broad institutional,
resource and technological needs at an early stage, including
potential funding problems;
(6) provide a basis for collaboration and coordination across
administrative boundaries and between sector-specific
authorities and help avoid contradictions in policy and
planning while enhancing efficiencies;
(7) strengthen preparation and implementation of individual
projects within the region, by recommending criteria for
environmental screening, analysis and review of such projects,
and setting standards and guidelines for project
implementation; and
(8) provide a vehicle for public participation in shaping the
future development of a region, thereby building public
support for the process.
Programmatic EISs in the United States
In the United States the Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ)
Regulations contain concepts and definitions related to EIA. The
Regulations also include the concepts of SEA, although the focus is on
what are called "programmatic EISs" and "tiering." Fundamentally, EISs
are required on major federal actions; such actions can include policies,
plans, and programs. For example, para. 1508.18(b) indicates that federal
actions tend to fall within one of the following categories (Council on
Environmental Quality, 1987):
(1) Adoption of official policy, such as rules, regulations, and
interpretations; treaties and international conventions or
agreements; or formal documents establishing an agency's
policies which will result in or substantially alter agency
programs.
(2) Adoption of formal plans, such as official documents prepared
or approved by federal agencies which guide or prescribe
alternative uses of federal resources, and upon which future
agency actions will be based.
(3) Adoption of programs, such as a group of concerted actions to
implement a specific policy or plan; or systematic and
connected agency decisions allocating agency resources to
implement a specific statutory program or executive directive.
(4) Approval of specific projects, such as construction or
management activities located in a defined geographic area.
Project* include actions approved by permit or other
regulatory decisions as well as federal and federally assisted
activities.
SEA or "programmatic EISs" would apply to (1) through (3) above, and
project-level EIA would apply to (4). Programmatic EISs are related to
project-level EISs via tiering. Tiering_is defined in the CEQ Regulations
in para. 1508.28 as (Council on Environmental Quality, 1987):
7-15
-------
The coverage of general matters in broader environmental impact
statements (such as national program or policy statements) with
subsequent narrower statements or environmental analyses (such as
regional or basinwide program statements or ultimately site-specific
statements) incorporating by reference the general discussions and
concentrating solely on the issues specific to the statement
subsequently prepared. Tiering is appropriate when the sequence of
statements or analyses is:
(a) Prom a program, plan, or policy environmental impact
statement to a program, plan, or policy statement or
analysis of lesser scope or to a site-specific statement
or analysis.
(b) From an environmental impact statement on a specific
action at an early stage (such as need and site
selection) to a supplement (which is preferred) or a
subsequent statement or analysis at a later stage (such
as environmental mitigation). Tiering in such cases is
appropriate when it helps the lead agency to focus on
the issues which are ripe for decision and exclude from
consideration issues already decided or not yet ripe.
The concept of tiering is addressed in para. 1502.20 as follows
(Council on Environmental Quality, 1987):
Agencies are encouraged to tier their environmental impact
statements to eliminate repetitive discussions of the same issues
and to focus on the actual issues ripe for decision at each level of
environmental review. Whenever a broad environmental impact
statement has been prepared (such as a program or policy statement)
and a subsequent statement or environmental assessment is then
prepared on an action included within the entire program or policy
(such as a site specific action) the subsequent statement or
environmental assessment need only summarize the issues discussed in
the broader statement and incorporate discussions from the broader
statement by reference and shall concentrate on the issues specific
to the subsequent action. The subsequent document shall state where
the earlier document is available. Tiering may also be appropriate
for different stages of actions.
If properly done in a timely manner, tiering can aid in the
reduction of paperwork.
Para. 1502.4(c) further suggests an approach for grouping broad
actions to be addressed by a programmatic EIS; this approach, which
includes several concepts related to CEAs, is as follows (Council on
Environmental Quality, 1987):
When preparing statements on broad actions (including proposals by
more than one agency), agencies may find it useful to evaluate the
proposal(s) in one of the following ways:
(1) Geographically, including actions occurring in the same
general location, such as body of water, region, or
metropolitan area.
(2) Generically, including actions which have relevant
similarities, such as common timing, impacts,
7-16
-------
alternatives, methods of implementation, media, or
subject matter.
(3) By stage of technological development including federal
or federally assisted research, development or
demonstration programs for new technologies which, if
applied, could significantly affect the quality of the
human environment. Statements shall be prepared on such
programs and shall be available before the program has
reached a stage of investment or commitment to
implementation likely to determine subsequent
development or restrict later alternatives.
One rather unique topic related to SEA and addressed by the CEQ
Regulations is associated with EISs on proposed legislation. Such
legislative impact studies should incorporate the consideration of direct,
indirect, and cumulative effects. This topic is described in para.
1506.8(a) as follows (Council on Environmental Quality, 1987):
The NEPA process for proposals for legislation significantly
affecting the quality of the human environment shall be integrated
with the legislative process of the Congress. A legislative
environmental impact statement is the detailed statement required by
law to be included in a recommendation or report on a legislative
proposal to Congress. A legislative environmental impact statement
shall be considered part of the formal transmittal of a legislative
proposal to Congress; however, it may be transmitted to Congress up
to 30 days later in order to allow time for completion of an
accurate statement which can serve as the basis for public and
Congressional debate. The statement must be available in time for
Congressional hearings and deliberations.
Table 7.4 illustrates the types of policy, plan, or program
subjected to the preparation of a programmatic EIS in the United States in
1994 (Bass and Herson, 1996). Geographical plans for various land uses
were the most common types of actions subjected to such strategic impact
studies. Programmatic EISs represented about 25% of all EZSs prepared in
the United States in 1994. Although no specific review of these
programmatic EISs has been done regarding their inclusion of CEAs, it can
be presumed that most, if not all, incorporated cumulative effect*
considerations.
Case Studies
Ten case studies related to SEAs are in a recent book (Therivel and
Partidario, 1996a); they are focused on the context and utilized steps,
and their results and perceived effectiveness (Therivel and Partidario,
1996b). These case studies, along with several others, are identified in
Table 7.5. Again, it can be presumed that these case studies incorporated
cumulative effects considerations.
PLANNING AND IMPLEMENTATION OF SEAs
The planning and implementation of a SEA involves the consideration
of a number of issues. As shown earlier in Figure 7.3, the stages of a
SEA have some similarities and some differences in relation to the stages
in a project-level EIA. Sadler and Verheem (1996) have suggested that
7-17
-------
Table 7.4: Programmatic EISs Prepared by Federal Agencies in the United
States — January 1994 - December 1994 (Bass and Herson, 1996)
Type of Plan, Policy or Program Number of EISs
Military base reuse plans S^Ac 25
River basin plans (e.g., wild fi scenic designation,
flood control, ecosystem management, water quality) 19
Public land management plans 17
National park management plans 15
National forest management plans 13
Fishery management plans 10
Wildlife habitat management plans 7
National wildlife refuge plans 3
Nuclear fuel management plans 4
Energy, utility or fuel management plans (non-nuclear) 3
Hydroelectric power programs (multi-facility systems) 2
Pest management plans 2
Mineral management plan 1
Dredge disposal plan . 1
Air quality emissions standards 1
National border enforcement program 1
Range land reform program 1
Solid waste management plan 1
Oil spill habitat restoration plan 1
Regional aircraft flight management plan 1
Total 128
7-18
-------
Table 7.5: Case Studies Related to SEA
Category of Action
Reference
(A)* Land use planning in the
United Kingdom
(A) Territorial development
strategy in Hong Kong
(A) Land use planning in
Hertfordshire County in the
United Kingdom
(A) Municipal land use planning
in Sweden
(A) Land use planning in San
Joaquin County in
California in the United
States of America
Pinfield (1992)
Hong Kong Government (1995)
Rumble and Therivel (1996)*
Asplund and Hilding-Rydevik
(1996)*
Skewes-Cox (1996)*
(S) Water environment in the
United Kingdom
(S) Transportation sector in
the United Kingdom
(S) Siting of windfarms in
Germany
(S) Forest management plan in
Nepal
(S) National level
environmental restoration
and waste management
program in the United
States of America
(S) Trans-European rail network
(S) National waste management
program in The Netherlands
Gardiner (1992)
Sheate (1992)
Kleinschmidt and Wagner (1996)'
Khadka, et al., (1996)*
Webb and Sigal (1996)'
Dom (1996)*
Verheem (1996)*
(P) Allocation of funds for
economic development in
Europe
(P) Crop insurance policy in
Canada
Bradley (1996)*
Campbell (1996)*
A * area-wide or geographical SEA
S « . sector-based SEA
p « policy-based SEA
•case study in Therivel and Partidario (1996a)
7-19
-------
"good practice" regarding SEA should incorporate the following items
within the utilized framework:
(1) Apply a simple screening procedure to initiate SEA or exempt
proposals from further consideration, depending on their
consequentiality. Several methods can be used: categorical
lists, case-by-case test for significance, some combination,
or, where no formal guidance is available, prescreening
questions.
(2) Use scoping to identify important issues (including cumulative
effects), draft terms of reference where necessary for SEA,
determine the approach to be followed, and establish other
alternatives for consideration.
(3) Specify, evaluate and compare alternatives, including the no
action option. The aim is to clarify the trade-offs at stake,
showing what is gained or lost, and point, where possible, to
the best practicable environmental option (or equivalent
designation).
(4) Conduct a policy appraisal or impact analysis to the extent
necessary to examine environmental issues and cumulative
effects, compare the alternatives, and identify any necessary
mitigation or offset measures for residual concerns.
(5) Report the findings of the SEA, with supporting advice and
recommendations, to decision makers in clear and concise
language. Depending on the proposal, the documentation may
range from a few pages to an EIS; longer reports should have
an executive summary.
(6) Review the quality of the SEA to ensure the information is
sufficient, and relevant to requirements of decision making.
Depending on the process, this activity can range from a quick
check to an independent review.
(7) Establish necessary follow up provisions for monitoring
effects, checking that environmental conditionalities are
being implemented, and, where necessary, tracking arrangements
for project ElAs. For policies, plans and programs that
initiate projects, tiering EZA to the SEA can significantly
improve process effectiveness and efficiency.
Table 7.6 summarizes a methodology developed in 1981 by the U.S.
Department of Housing and Urban Development for assessing the impacts of
alternative patterns of urban development or redevelopment in
metropolitan-scale areas (Therivel, et al., 1992). The listed general
topics could be used to plan any type of geographically-focused SEA; they
could also serve as a basis for developing the topical contents of an
areawide EZS (geographically-based SEA). Further, cumulative effects
considerations could be incorporated into topics (2) through (7).
Detailed considerations will not be given herein to each issue
related to planning a SEA; rather, particular attention will be given to
indicators, alternatives, mitigation measures, and the potential topical
contents of a SEA report.
7-20
-------
Table 7.6: Topical Issues in an Area-wide Study of Urban
Development or Redevelopment (Therivel, et al., 1992)
(1) Determine need/feasibility:
indicators of need;
availability of data, expertise, funds;
prepare study design.
(2) Establish area boundaries, analysis units, environmental data
base:
availability of data;
location of expected change;
location of resources/hazards;
jurisdictional boundaries;
compatibility with anticipated impact issues.
(3) Identify areawide alternatives:
research local and areawide plans, programs, etc.;
define areawide alternatives: totals, 'theme,' etc.;
allocate areawide totals to analysis units:
by land use type, resource type, etc.
(4) Scoping:
identify key issues;
eliminate nonpertinent issues;
establish work plan: revise/finalize area boundaries, data
collection plan, report format.
(5) Environmental analysis:
document baseline conditions (analysis unit scale): presence
or absence, quantity, sensitivity/significance, trends, past
changes if significant;
establish units or multipliers of demand and/or consumption
(per capita, per household, by industry, etc.);
estimate impacts: for each environmental component and for
each alternative begin at analysis unit scale, aggregate for
area scale.
(6) Impact synthesis and evaluation:
identify evaluation standards/criteria/preferences;
evaluate impacts for each environmental component;
compare alternatives.
(7) Recommendations:
identify mitigation measures (prevention, compensation,
substitution);
identify preferred alternative (if possible).
7-21
-------
Indicators
Indicators can be used within SEAs as a means of describing existing
environmental conditions, predicting impacts, and comparing alternatives.
Criteria which can be used for choosing such indicators, including
cumulative effects indicators, include that they (Therivel, 1996):
(1) are individually and collectively meaningful;
(2) represent key issues;
(3) reflect both national/regional interests and local trends;
(4) are based on valid principles and assumptions;
(5) are based on relatively easy to collect information,
preferably information that has already been available over a
reasonable time-scale;
(6) allow qualitative and quantitative information, and
information at different spatial scales, to be used in a
methodologically sound way;
(7) allow consideration of alternatives, both separately and in
combination;
(8) lead to the measurement of baseline information and the
prediction and monitoring of Impacts;
(9) yield results that are repeatable given certain explicit
assumptions;
(10) stimulate the imagination of decision-makers and increase
insight into the choices to be made; and
(11) yield results that are understandable to decision-makers and
the public.
Alternatives
The alternatives addressed in PPPs can be broader and perhaps of a
different nature than typical alternatives for project-level EIAs. In
fact, such alternatives can be compared and evaluated relative to their
features regarding cumulative effects. Examples of PPP-specific
alternatives include (Therivel, 1996):
(1) the 'do nothing' or 'continue with present trends' option;
(2) demand reduction, for instance reducing the demand for water
through water metering, as well as meeting demand;
(3) different • locational approaches, for instance building new
houses in existing towns or in new towns;
(4) provision of different types of development which achieve the
same objective, for instance producing energy by gas, coal,
wind, etc.;
(5) fiscal measures such as toll roads or congestion charges;
7-22
-------
(6) different forms of management, for instance waste management
by recycling, incineration, etc.; and
(7) combinations of development and management approaches which
exemplify themes, such as more public vs. more car transport.
Mitigation Measures
Potential mitigation measures which can be appropriate in SEAs,
including measures to minimize undesirable cumulative effects, include
(Therivel, 1996):
(1) planning future developments to avoid sensitive sites;
(2) placing constraints on, or establishing a framework for,
lower-tier PPPs; this could include requirements for SEA/EIA
of lower-tier PPPs and projects, or specific requirements for
the implementation of projects resulting from the PPP;
(3) establishing or funding the establishment of, new areas of
nature conservation or recreation;
(4) establishing management guidelines for the implementation of
the PPP; and
(5) relocating sensitive/rare wildlife species or habitats, or
local amenities.
Contents of SEA Reports
Two examples of report contents will be mentioned. First, in 1992
a potential list of topics which should be addressed in a SEA report (or
programmatic EIS) was promulgated; the topics are as follows (Wood and
Dejeddour, 1992):
(1) a description of the policy, plan or program and its main
objectives;
(2) a description of how the effects (direct, indirect, and/or
cumulative) on the environment were taken into account in
formulating the objectives of the policy, plan or program;
(3) a description of the main alternatives;
(4) a description of the aspects of the environment and, where
possible/ of the area likely to be affected, including a
description of sensitive zones;
(5) a description of the likely significant direct, indirect, and
cumulative effects of the policy, plan or program and its main
alternatives on the environment;
(6) a description of mitigation measures for the chosen
alternative, including the procedures which will apply to the
evaluation of lower tier actions following from the action;
(7) a description of the compatibility of the chosen alternative
with relevant environmental regulations;
7-23
-------
(8) an outline of the difficulties (technical deficiencies or lack
of knowledge) encountered in compiling the required
information; and,
(9) a non-technical summary.
Therivel, et al. (1992) also suggested a topical outline for a SEA
report as including the following:
(1) table of contents;
(2) summary;
(3) description of proposed PPP and its objectives;
(4) description of the need for, and feasibility of, the PPP;
(5) alternatives to the PPP;
(6) description of 'boundaries' — regional or sectoral — that
form the limits of the SEA (it should be noted that
delineating such boundaries is also appropriate in CEAs);
(7) relation to other relevant PPPs (could include cumulative
effects considerations) and environmental requirements;
(8) scoping of issues/impacts to which the SEA is limited
(including a statement explaining why other possible
issues/impacts are not addressed), such scoping could be
focused on cumulative effects;
(9) description of affected environment;
(10) environmental consequences (direct, indirect, and cumulative)
of the proposed PPP and alternatives;
(11) impact evaluation;
(12) proposed mitigation measures;
(13) recommendations; and
(14) list of preparers and recipients.
General Principles for Implementing SEAs
Finally, regarding the implementation of SEAs, 12 general principles
have been articulated as follows (Sadler and Verheem, 1996):
(1) initiating agencies are accountable for assessing the
environmental effects (direct, indirect, and cumulative) of
new or amended policies, plans and programs;
(2) the assessment process should be applied as early as possible
in proposal design;
(3) the scope of assessment must be commensurate with the
proposal's potential impact or consequence for the environment
(the scope could focus on cumulative effects);
7-24
-------
(4) objectives and terms of reference should be clearly defined;
(5) alternatives to, as well as the direct, indirect, and
cumulative environmental effects of, a proposal should be
considered;
(6) other factors, including socio-economic considerations, should
be included as necessary and appropriate;
(7) evaluation of significance and determination of acceptability
should be made against a policy framework of environmental
objectives and standards;
(8) provision should be made for public involvement, consistent
with the potential degree of concern and controversy of the
proposal;
(9) public reporting of the assessment and decisions (unless
explicit, stated limitations on confidentiality are given);
(10) need for independent oversight of process implementation,
agency compliance and government-wide performance;
(11) SEA should result in incorporation of environmental factors,
including cumulative effects consideration and sustainable
development, in policy making; and
(12) tiered to other SEAs, project EIAs and/or monitoring for
proposals that initiate further actions (implied in such
tiering is the consideration of cumulative effects).
METHODS FOR USE IN SEAs
A number of types of methods can be useful within the context of the
tasks associated with a SEA. To illustrate, Table 7.7 contains an early
list of applicable methods tied to specific tasks (Wood and Dejeddour,
1992).
Applicable methods for SEA include the types of methods listed in
Table 5.2 herein for project-level EIAs, as well as methods typically used
for policy analysis/plan evaluation (Sadler and Verheem, 1996). Examples
of the latter group of methods include scenarios, planning balance sheets,
and cost-benefit analysis. Depending upon the particular characteristics
of the policy, plan, or program subjected to SEA, modifications may be
necessary in selected methods from both groups. Table 7.8 lists BOOM
specific methods which can be used for impact identification in SEA,
including the identification of cumulative effects; the methods are
displayed in four categories (Sadler and Verheem, 1996). Examples of
methods which can be used for impact analysis in SEA are shown in Table
7.9 (Sadler and Verheem, 1996).
Table 7.10 delineates examples of methods associated with different
steps in planning and conducting a SEA (Sadler and Verheem, 1996). As was
noted earlier in conjunction with applying the EIA process to project-
level actions, no single method can be used to fulfill all the steps in a
SEA.
One aspect of impact analysis involves impact prediction. Examples
of impact prediction techniques which can be used in SEAs include
(Therivel, 1996):
7-25
-------
Table 7.7: Potentially Applicable Methods Associated with SEA Tasks
(Wood and Dejeddour, 1992)
TASK
Deciding if SEA i* necessary
Description of the action cod the environment
•fleeted
Predicting impacts
Determination of impact significance
Description of mitigating measures
Evaluation of alternatives
Determining compatibility with environmental
regulations
Reporting assessment findings
Reviewing the report
Consultation and public participation
rfn*ittnfinulrifiv
Implemenution, monitoring and pott-auditing
METHODS (EXAMPLES ONL10
Use of prescriptive lists, guidelines, thresholds and criteria;
determination of local environmental significance; authority and public
consultations.
Checklists: matrices; networks: aerial photography; cartographic
techniques; field and random sampling techniques; data collation and
retrieval systems; review of existing monitoring systems: consultations
Legislative requirements; screening criteria; guidelines: simple
checklists; matrices; networks; energy flow diagrams and simulation
models; comparisons with similar studies and use of case studies;
preliminary impact prediction.
Population and economic forecasting techniques {e.g., input-output
analysts; simulation, computer and diffusions models; expert systems;
dose-response functions).
Public and environmental agency consultations (e.g.. Delphi method,
public hearings, social surveys, etc.); use of significance criteria and
standards; scaling and weighting systems; overlay methods.
Consideration and description of mitigating measures for each
alternative.
Cost-benefit analysis; goals achievement matrix; planning balance
sheet: scaling and weighting systems: overlays; simulation models:
worst case analysis: application of evaluation criteria.
Review of existing relevant environmental legislation; environmental
and other agency consultations.
Overlays: mapping; photomontages: models: matrices; summary
sheets.
Competent authority checklists; review criteria; consultations.
Social survey techniques; public consultations by means of hearings,
meetings, seminars, etc.; agency consultation (Delphi Method.
meetings, etc.)
Synthesis and analysis of the results of consultation (use of summary
sheets; matrices, etc.); application of evaluation criteria; action
modification in the light of these.
Application of evaluation criteria and use of guidelines' consultation
and public participation; environmental monitoring systems (similar
methods as those used to describe the existing environment).
7-26
-------
Table 7.8: Some Methods for Impact Identification in SEA
(Sadler and Verheem, 1996)
Category
Literature March
Expert judgment
Analytical techniques
Consultative tool*
Specific Methods Wiihm Category
State of knowledge - turvey to identify linkages between polic*
actions and environmental impacts. "State of the Environment*
reports and environmental policy plans will be useful documents
to sun with.
Case comparison - of examples from other policy domains or
jurisdictions. Analysis of similar actions in other countries can
provide insight into the possible impacts of policy options.
Delphi survey - iterative canvass of opinions and perspectives
from recognized 'experts' in pertinent fields.
Workshops - structured meeting with a problem-solving focus.
e.g., to develop alternatives or map possible impacts.
Scenario development - projections, based on reasoned
assumptions, to outline and compare the means by which, or
conditions under which, a proposed action may be implemented;
e.g.. "best" vs. "worst" case scenario of risks and impacts.
Model mapping - identification of cause-effect network* to
qualitatively illustrate linkages; e.g., policies will influence plans
and programs, which will subsequently initiate projects.
Checklists - those developed for project E1A have proven useful
at the strategic level too, in original or modified form.
Indicators - often, it will not be appropriate, possible or
necessary to predict all environmental impacts of a proposed
policy; instead, screening against relevant indicators may be
sufficient for the purposes of a SEA. In marry cases, indicator!
can be used to establish networks focusing on emissions and
paths rather than actual effects on flora and bunt. Because
indicators, by definition, need little aggregation, this may reduce
the workload considerably. Note, however, the possible
distortion thst may occur in the simplification process implied by
aggregating environmental variables into one single indicator.
Interviews - with experts, opinion leaden, political
representatives, etc.
Selective consultation • with key interest groups and/or
communities and sector* directly affected by • proposed policy,
plan or program.
Policy dialogue - round table or other multi-stakeholder process
to clarify issues, determine consequences and identify option*
that meet the concerns and interests represented.
7-27
-------
Table 7.9: Examples of Some Methods for Impact Analysis in SEA
(Sadler and Verheem, 1996)
Extended tue of identification method! - In moft SEA*. relatively simple ind straightforward method* will be sufficient. Examples
include: literature survey, cue comparison, expert judgment, scenario development and model mapping. This last technique ta
reported to hive been effective for SEA. Often, it has proven possible to sufficiently quantify environmental indicators by filling in
each parameter of an impact network, baaed on data from literature, indicative calculations or expert judgment.
Use of matrices • Grid diagrams can be used to cross-reference a list of (sub)actions to a list of environmental impact parameters.
Most SEAs make uae of matrices in some form. The UK Guide on SEA for Structure Plans recommends them as the main tool,
including their use for consistency analysis to identify potential conflicts between objectives in different policy sectors.
Computer modeling • In some countries, computer models are used to calculate the impact of strategic options on environmental
indicators. For example, these have been applied to habitat supply analysis in Canada and the US, and to simulate the impact of lax
policy on (national) energy use. and vehicle mileage and use of public transport in the UK.
Geographic Information Systems - These are especially useful in land use planning, routing studies and assessing cumulative impacts of
several projects in the same area. Also, they may be used to support impact analysis, e.g., calculation of land occupation or
measuring environmental impacts as function of distance to pollution sources.
Cost effectiveness analysis - Used to select the option which achieves a target or goal at least cost (environmental or financial). This is
• useful technique in cases where actions are clearly constrained by existing (environmental) targets or objectives, for example,
ambient air and water quality standards, emission limits under or resource harvesting allocations.
Cost-benefit analysis (CBA) - Technique in which as many impacts as possible are expressed in a unified value: the benefit-cost ratio is
a basis for choice between the options reviewed.
Multi-criteria analysis (MCA) - This is an advanced form of CBA in which separate scores on a number of key evaluation criteria are
given, rather than using one. unified value to express the significance of all impacts (as is the case in CBA). Using mathematical
operations, combinations of weights and criteria scores provide a ranking of options. The advantage of MCA over CBA is that it
allows for the joint analysis of both environmental costs and financial costs, even when the environmental costs cannot be valued in
monetary terms. MCA does not necessarily lead to one, unambiguous solution; it generally leaves some freedom to decision makers.
A specific form of MCA is the 'goals achievement matrix* which helps in identifying how an action may potentially contribute to a set
of specified (environmental) objectives.
Aggregation methods - Used to translate 'groups of indicators* into one. composite indicator. The aim is to make the total amount of
environmental information more manageable. In this process, results are often weighed against each other and "trade-ofT choices are
made. In principle, these are political decisions, and therefore, care should be taken in using aggregation methods for SEA. Usually
however, some aggregation is needed and possible without generating controversy. Some methods arc:
• index methods - aggregation by valuation and weighted summation:
• monetary methods - all impacts are translated into one unit: as yel.they are insufficiently developed for use in EA;
• source methods - aggregation on an impact basis, for example, energy sources according to their contribution to the
emissions of CO., air pollution sources according to their contribution to acidification.
Life Cycle Analysis - A standardized method taking into account the total 'life cycle* of goods or services from uae of natural
resources, via production of goods to the treatment of waste. A standardized method is "scored * on ten environmental issues: human
toxicity, aquatic ccotoxicity, soil ecotoxicity. greenhouse effect, ozone production, acidification, cutrophication, smell, use of space
and use of natural resources. Scores are weighed against existing environmental problems in the area.
7-28
-------
Table 7.10: Application of Methods to Steps in SEA (Sadler and Verheem,
1996)
Step
Examples of Methods
Baseline Study:
SOE reports and similar
documents
environmental stock/ sett ing
"points of reference"
Screening/Scoping :
formal /informal checklists
survey, case comparison
effects networks
public or expert consultation
Defining Options:
(by reference to):
• environmental policy,
standards, strategies
• previous commitment precedents
• regional/local plans
• public values and preferences
Impact Analysis:
scenario development
risk assessment
environmental indicators and
criteria
policy impact matrix
predictive and simulation
models
GISs capacity/habitat analysis
benefit/cost analysis and
other economic valuation
techniques
multi-criteria analysis
Documentation for Decision Making:
cross-impact matrices
consistency analysis
sensitivity analysis
decision "trees"
7-29
-------
(1) checklists which show whether the PPP has an impact or not,
sometimes with further details on, for instance, impact type
(positive, negative) and magnitude;
(2) compatibility or consistency assessment, which tests whether
different subcomponents of the PPP are internally consistent;
(3) scenario analysis (this can be useful in addressing cumulative
effect*);
(4) overlay maps or CIS showing, for instance, sites affected by
the PPP as well as cumulative effects concerns;
(5) various index, indicator and/or weighting methods such as the
Habitat Sustainability Index;
(6) computer models, for instance models which predict likely air
pollution based on assumptions regarding vehicle type, number,
occupancy rate, and fuel use; and
(7) expert opinion.
Table 7.11 summarizes, on a relative basis, the usage of several
types of EIA methods for project-specific and cumulative effects, and for
strategic-specific and cumulative effects. Table 7.12 delineates methods
which could be used for air impacts prediction at both project and SEA
levels. Finally, Table 7.13 illustrates types of EIA methods as shown in
Table 5.2 herein in terms of whether they are focused on impacts to
specific media or resources, or whether they can be used for an
integrative consideration of impacts. Table 7.13 has applicability for
project-level, cumulative, and strategic impact issues.
'in summary, because of the relative newness of SEAs, pertinent
methodologies are not as well-developed as for project-level EIA
(Therivel, et al., 1992). As such methodologies are developed, they are
expected to include more attention to economic valuation of impacts and to
addressing uncertainty.
ADVANTAGES (USES) OF SEA
Three key uses of SEAs are as a means to strengthen project-level
EIA; address cumulative and large scale effects; and incorporate
sustainability considerations into the 'inner circles' of decision making
(Sadler and Verheem, 1996). At a more specific level, several authors have
articulated advantages associated with SEAs; for example, Wood and
Dejeddour (1992) cited the following:
(1) encourages the consideration of environmental objectives
during policy, plan and program-making activities within
nonenvironmental organizations;
(2) facilitates consultations between authorities on, and enhances
public involvement in, evaluation of environmental aspects of
policy, plan and program formulation;
(3) may render some project EIAs redundant if direct, indirect,
and cumulative effects have been assessed adequately;
(4) may leave examination of certain impacts to project EIA;
7-30
-------
Table 7.11: Methods for Usage in Studies
Types of Methods
Set cv.p. 5*
Analogs
Checklists
Decision-focused
Checklists
ECBA*
Expert Opinion
Expert System
Indices or Indicators
Laboratory Testing
Landscape Evaluation
Literature Reviews
Mass Balances
Matrices
Monitoring (baseline)
Monitoring (field)
Networks
Overlay Mapping
Photographs /Photomontages
Qualitative Models
Quantitative Models
Risk Assessment
Scenario Building
Trend Extrapolation
Relative Usaae
Project
H
H
M
L
H
L
M
M
M
M
H
H
L
L
M
M
M
H
M
L
L
L
Cumulative
M
M
L
O
M
O
L
L
L
L
L
L
O
O
0
L
L
L
L
L
O
L
L
M
L
0
M
O
M
NA
L
L
L
M
0
0
O
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
T
L
L
O
L
L
NA
O
O
O
L
O
O
O
L
L
O
O
O
O
O
H « relatively extensive (high) usage
M « relatively moderate (intermediate) usage
L * relatively low usage
O - limited usage, if at all
NA * not applicable
'ECBA * environmental cost benefit analysis
7-31
-------
Table 7.12: Air Impacts Prediction at Project and Strategic Levels
Project: Analogs
ECBA (C)*
Expert Opinion (C)
Indices or Indicators (C)
Laboratory Testing
Landscape Evaluation (C)
Literature Reviews
Mass Balances (C)
Monitoring (field)
Overlay Mapping (C)
Quantitative Modeling'(C)"
Risk Assessment (C)
Scenario Building (C)
Trend Extrapolation (C)
Strategic: Expert Opinion (C)
Indices or Indicators (C)
Literature Reviews
Mass Balances (C)
Matrices (C)
Qualitative Modeling
Quantitative Modeling (C)'
Risk Assessment
Scenario Building
Trend Extrapolation
•C denotes can also be used for cumulative effects
"SCREEN2; ISC2 (single or multiple sources)
"ISC2 plus others
""Multisource regional model; atmospheric chemistry model
7-32
-------
Table 7.13: Specific Versus Integrative Focus of Methods
Types of Methods
in EIA
Analogs
Checklists
Decision-focused Checklists
ECBA
Expert Opinion
Expert Systems
Indices or Indicators
Laboratory Testing
Landscape Evaluation
Literature Reviews
Mass Balances
Matrices
Monitoring (baseline)
Monitoring (field)
Networks
Overlay Mapping
Photographs/Photomontages
Qualitative Models
Quantitative Models
Risk Assessment
Scenario Building
Trend Extrapolation
Focused on
Impacts Related
to Specific
Media/Resources
4-
•»•
•*•
+
•*•
+
4-
+
4-
+
+
+
•f
•f
+
+
Focused on
Integrative
Consideration of
Impacts
•4-
+
*
4-
4-
+
•»•
*
•f
•«•
•»•
Note: Both columns could be related to CEA as appropriate.
7-33
-------
(5) allows formulation of standard or generic mitigation measures
for later projects;
(6) encourages consideration of alternatives often ignored or not
feasible in project EIA;
(7) can help determine appropriate sites for projects subsequently
subject to EIA;
(8) allows more effective analysis of cumulative effects of both
large and small projects;
(9) encourages and facilitates the consideration of synergistic
effects;
(10) allows more effective consideration of ancillary or secondary
effects and activities;
(11) facilitates consideration of long range and delayed impacts;
and
(12) allows analysis of the impacts of policies which may not be
implemented through projects.
DIFFICULTIES fBARRIERS I RELATED TO SEA
While there are benefits related to planning and conducting SEAs,
difficulties (barriers) and limitations have also been identified for such
studies. For example, some of the difficulties encountered with SEAs
include (Therivel, et al., 1992):
(1) the often nebulous nature of proposals at the level of
policies and plans, and the tendency for decisions regarding
PPPs to be made in an incremental and not clearly formulated
fashion;
(2) the problems of system boundaries: the large number of
potential decisions that flow from a higher-level decision,
and the large number of potential developments over a physical
or policy area, and thus the consequent analytical complexity
required, including complexities related to cumulative effects
considerations;
(3) lack of information about existing and projected future
environmental conditions; lack of information about the
nature, scale and location of future development proposals
(reasonable foreseeable future actions); and thus the lack of
precision with which these impacts can be predicted;
(4) the large number and variety of alternatives to be considered
at the different stages of policy formulation;
(5) lack of shared information about the experience of EIA at the
strategic level, and a dearth of cases in which it has been
applied, especially to policies;
(6) the uncertainty over public involvement in the policy-making
process; and
(7) the political nature of the decision-making process.
7-34
-------
One argument which has been raised against a formal system of SEA at
any government level is that for most PPPs there may not be a clear Doint
in time when* decision is made (Therivel, et al., 1992). Another one is
that environmental concerns, including cumulative effects, are addressed
in general planning activities for geographical areas, regions, states or
countries characterized by land use legislation and a strong land use
y
planning system.
barriers to the introduction and implementation
«i requirements are identified in Table 7.14 (Sadler and Verheem,
1996). As shown, political will can be a barrier; it could also be seen
aL.*n *dvanta9« in situations where elected/appointed governmental
officials serve as advocates for SEAs. The importance of political will
was noted by Wood (1992) when he suggested that the major deterrent to SEA
is "political,- that is, the reluctance of politicians and senior
bureaucrats in major governmental departments voluntarily to cede a role
in decision making to environmental authorities by requesting SEAs of
their activities. Political will can also be a deterrent to CEA; this
topic is addressed in Chapter 14 herein.
To further illustrate the importance of political will, it should be
noted that essentially all of the published literature on SEA is written
by advocates and practitioners, hence the emphasis is often on the
potential benefits of SEA. Further, statistics on the number of countries
with SEA requirements, and specific relevant in-country laws and
regulations, have been reported. An interesting question can thus be
posed — what do "user governmental levels" think of SEAs, and are they
useful or even used in "real world situations?" McCarthy (1996) reported
on a survey of the attitudes of local and state governmental agencies
regarding the above question. A questionnaire survey was sent to 129
government agencies in South Australia in 1995, and 61 responses were
received. Agencies contacted included 117 local councils and 12 state
government departments. Key findings from the questionnaire results
included the following (McCarthy, 1996):
(1) The principles of SEA were supported by the majority of
agencies, although these principles were believed to be
relevant only some of the time, depending on the environmental
significance and the nature of the policy, plan, or program
( in-house versus open process ) .
(2) Most agencies preferred a degree of formality in a SEA
framework although almost half suggested that a combination of
formal and informal elements was most appropriate.
(3) Most supported public involvement at this level of assessment,
albeit only some of the time.
(4) The majority of agencies are practicing informal SEA some of
the time, although this was a new practice for nearly a third
of the respondents. For others, it was increasing in response
to public demand.
(5) The majority of agencies lacked broad and explicit
environmental goals as a framework for assessment, thus
implying the need to improve the knowledge base as a precursor
to SEA.
Survey participants also identified several constraints to SEA
practice in South Australia. The identified constraints, shown in Table
7.15, are similar to constraints identified by several SEA practitioners
7-35
-------
Table 7.14: Examples of Institutional Barriers to Introducing and
Implementing SEA (Sadler and Verheem, 1996)
• Insufficient political will — as indicated by low priority given to
environmental concerns, public participation and integrated decision
making;
• Lack of clear objectives ~ e.g., absent or incomplete direction
given to incorporating environmental goals into sectoral policies,
plans and programs;
• Narrow definition of issue* — reflected in prevailing emphasis on
economic growth and failure to consider the strategic environmental
implications (including cumulative effects issues);
• Compartmentalized organizational structures — typically,
consideration of environmental matters is curtailed by the sectoral
division of political powers and agency responsibilities;
• Absence of accountability — often, economic agencies are not held
responsible for the environmental implications of their actions;
• Lack of incentive — policy makers and their senior advisors are
seldom rewarded for anticipating and avoiding environmental
problems; on the contrary, taking these into account usually
generates additional pressures;
• Exigencies of decision making — often political stresses dictate a
fast response to events in which there is too little time to review
and weigh economic consequences, let alone environmental ones; and
• Bureaucratic prerogatives — environmental requirements encroach on
"turf and territory" of other sectors, which is zealously guarded by
officials, especially at the policy level.
7-36
-------
Table 7.15: Constraints to SEA in South Australia (McCarthy, 1996)
Time and resource limitations
Lack of priority given to environmental considerations
Imprecise or ill-informed standards for compliance
The challenge of addressing issues which cross traditional discipline or
departmental boundaries
Governmental agencies are as yet not obliged to embrace principles of
environmentally sustainable development
Another level of bureaucracy in an already complex system
State control over local issues
Imposition from external authorities into internal processes
Some policies are too broad to assess and are continuously changing
Problems of external review by an independent agency
7-37
-------
(McCarthy, 1996). Topics associated with improving SEA were identified as
shown in Table 7.16 (McCarthy, 1996). While focused on South Australia,
they have general applicability.
In summary, the oft-indicated barriers to the implementation of SEA
include the following (Partidario, 1996):
(1) lack of knowledge and experience concerning which
environmental factors to consider, what environmental impacts
might arise (including cumulative effects) and how integrated
policy-making can be achieved;
(2) institutional and organizational difficulties as reflected by
the need for effective coordination amongst and within
government departments;
(3) lack of resources (information, expertise, financial);
(4) lack of guidelines or mechanisms to ensure full implementation
(including guidelines for CEA);
(5) insufficient political will and commitment to implement SEA;
(6) difficulty in stating clear policy proposals and in defining
when and how SEA should be applied;
(7) methodologies not well developed;
(8) limited public involvement;
(9) lack of clear accountability in the application of the SEA
process; and
(10) current project-specific EIA practices are not necessarily
applicable to SEA and are inhibiting sound SEA approaches.
RESEARCH WEEDS
Because of the relative infancy of SEA, a number of research needs
can be identified. One example is the need to quantify the costs and
benefits of SEA; another is to identify and prepare appropriate
professional-level training packages focused on SEA (Hood, 1992).
Some future directions and research needs related to the practice of
SEA were recently addressed by Partidario and Therivel (1996) as follows:
(1) SEA is only really effective when it starts early and
accompanies the entire PPP process, from its inception through
the multiple stages of decision-making.
(2) SEAs and their included CEAs should be linked to
sustainability, and should consider all the elements of
sustainable development: economic, socio-cultural and
biophysical. Trade-off analysis can be used to test various
PPP approaches, and to ensure that SEA is not merely a pro
forma exercise. Environmental considerations need to be fully
considered in decision-making, on a par with financial and
socio-economic considerations.
(3) Realistic SEA objectives and/or 'visions' must be established
early on. It may be useful to establish targets or benchmarks
7-38
-------
Table 7.16: Topics Related to Improving SEA in South Australia
(McCarthy, 1996)
Need to reduce ministerial discretion
Need to maintain in-house responsibility of the process
Importance of using independent consultants for assessment
Importance of integrating assessment early into the process rather than
retrospectively
Need to streamline the process to reduce delay
Belief that small counties and rural towns should be exempt from the
process
Need for more resources/support
Need for more staff and cooperation between Chief Executive Officers and
establishment of integrated teams
Need to improve lines of communication within government and with
community
Need to update and simplify state environmental information
7-39
-------
against which impacts can later be evaluated, but there may be
political and economic difficulties in establishing these
targets.
(4) SEAs should be based on a systematic methodology, possibly
linking objectives, indicators, existing conditions analysis,
impact predictions, mitigation and monitoring. SEAs should
include a statement of the methods used in carrying out the
analysis.
(5) The consideration of a range of alternatives is a crucial
component in SEA, otherwise SEA risks becoming a post hoc
exercise which merely justifies an agreed-upon PPP.
(6) SEA relies on the availability of suitable data; thus
integrated databases need to be developed.
(7) Simple impact (direct, indirect, and cumulative) prediction
and evaluation techniques are often as useful as, and
considerably less resource intensive than, more complex
techniques. New techniques specific to SEA need to be
developed, including simple methods for dealing with
uncertainty.
(8) The interest groups involved in SEA — including the public —
need more training in SEA techniques, and need to communicate
more with one another. Consultation with relevant experts and
the public is crucial to SEA. Transparency and legitimacy
needs to be encouraged.
CONCLUSIONS
Strategic environmental assessments are receiving greater attention
in the world-wide practice of environmental impact assessment. The
broader range of considerations within SEAs, including cumulative effects,
can represent both opportunities and concerns related to planning
considerations for enhancing environmental quality and/or minimizing
environmental deterioration. Opportunities are reflected by a more
logical basis for choosing the geographical area for study within the SEA
and related CEA. Further, siting-related decisions can be based on
cumulative effects and sustainable development considerations, and on
protecting the most valuable/sensitive natural resources. Planning can
also be done from an holistic perspective and not from a more limited
institutional focus. However, there are numerous concerns related to
planning and implementing SEA studies. Pragmatically, such concerns
include:
(1) lack of PPP specificity may limit specific considerations,
thus an "impact footprint" approach is needed;
(2) nonavailability of regional/national plans for reference; or
the availability of limited plans which are out-of-date;
(3) the larger scale of SEAs multiplies the effort needed for data
gathering on other projects, environmental resources, laws,
etc.;
(4) the environmental carrying capacity needs to be considered in
relation to cumulative effects, and there may be a lack of
information on this capacity;
7-40
-------
(5) the uncertainties may be greater than for project-level EIA;
(6) there is typically a greater need to address cumulative
effects and transboundary impacts; and
(7) the possible confusion as to whether certain topics should be
addressed in a SEA or a subsequent project-level EIA, or both.
Finally, due to the relative newness of SEAs, there is a great need
for case studies from which lessons learned can be articulated. This
information could be used in developing training programs related to SEA.
Such "lessons learned" would be helpful to substantive area professionals
who may be poorly trained to think holistically and on broader spatial and
temporal scales.
SELECTED REFERENCES
Asplund, E., and Hilding-Rydevik, T. , "SEA: Integration with Municipal
Comprehensive Land-use Planning in Sweden, Ch. 10 in The Practice of
Strategic Environmental Assessment. Therivel, R., and Partidario, M.R.,
editors, Earthscan Publications, Ltd., London, England, 1996, pp. 130-140.
Bass, R., and Herson, A., "Strategic Environmental Assessments in the
United States: Policy and Practice Under the National Environmental Policy
Act and the California Environmental Quality Act," paper presented at 16th
Annual Meeting of the International Association for Impact Assessment,
June 17-23, 1996, Estoril, Portugal.
Boothroyd, P., "Policy Assessment," Ch. 4 in Environmental and Social
Impact Assessment. Vanclay, F., and Bronstein, D.A., editors, John Wiley
and Sons, Ltd., Chichester, West Sussex, England, 1995, pp. 83-126.
Bradley, K., "SEA and the Structural Funds," Ch. 12 in The Practice of
Strategic Environmental Assessment. Therivel, R., and Partidario, M.R.,
editors, Earthscan Publications, Ltd., London, England, 1996, pp. 157-168.
Campbell, I., "SEA: A Case Study of Follow-Up to Canadian Crop Insurance,"
Ch. 13 in The Practice of Strategic Environmental Assessment. Therivel,
R., and Partidario, M.R., editors, Earthscan Publications, Ltd., London,
England, 1996, pp. 169-176.
Council on Environmental Quality, Code of Federal Regulations (CFR), Vol.
40, Chapter V, U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, D.C., July 1,
1987, pp. 929-971.
de Boer, J.J., and Sadler, B., editors, "Strategic Environmental
Assessment — Environmental Assessment of Policies — Briefing Papers on
Experience in Selected Countries," Publication No. 54, 1996, Ministry of
Housing, Spatial Planning and the Environment, The Hague, The Netherlands.
de Vries, Y., "The Netherlands Experience," in "Strategic Environmental
Assessment — Environmental Assessment of Policies — Briefing Papers on
Experience in Selected Countries," de Boer, J.J., and Sadler, B., editors.
Publication No. 54, 1996, Ministry of Housing, Spatial Planning and the
Environment, The Hague, The Netherlands, pp. 67-74.
Dom, A., "SEA of Trans-European Transport Networks," Ch. 6 in The Practice
of Strateoie Environmental Assessment. Therivel, R., and Partidario, M.R.,
editors, Earthscan Publications, Ltd., London, England, 1996, pp. 73-85.
7-41
-------
Elling, B., "The Danish Experience," in "Strategic Environmental
Assessment — Environmental Assessment of Policies — Briefing Papers on
Experience in Selected Countries," de Boer, J.J., and Sadler, B., editors.
Publication No. 54, 1996, Ministry of Housing, Spatial Planning and the
Environment, The Hague, The Netherlands, pp. 39-46.
Gardiner, J., "Strategic Environmental Assessment and the Water
Environment," Project Appraisal. Vol. 7, No. 3, September, 1992, pp. 165-
169.
Cow, L.J., "The New Zealand Experience," in "Strategic Environmental
Assessment ~ Environmental Assessment of Policies — Briefing Papers on
Experience in Selected Countries," de Boer, J.J., and Sadler, B., editors,
Publication No. 54, 1996, Ministry of Housing, Spatial Planning and the
Environment, The Hague, The Netherlands, pp. 75-85.
Hong Kong Government, "Territorial Development Strategy Review —
Strategic Environmental Assessment of the Preferred Options," Planning
Department, December, 1995, Hong Kong.
Johansen, G., "The Danish Experience — The Perspective of the Ministry of
Environment," in "Strategic Environmental Assessment — Environmental
Assessment of Policies — Briefing Papers on Experience in Selected
Countries," de Boer, J.J., and Sadler, B., editors, Publication No. 54,
1996, Ministry of Housing, Spatial Planning and the Environment, The
Hague, The Netherlands, pp. 47-50.
Khadka, R., McEachern, J., Rautianen, O., and Shrestha, U.S., "SEA of the
Bara Forest Management Plan, Nepal," Ch. 8 in The Practice of Strategic
Environmental Assessment. Therivel, R., and Partidario, M.R., editors,
Earthscan Publications, Ltd., London, England, 1996, pp. 95-111.
Kleinschmidt, V., and Wagner, D., "SEA of Wind Farms in the Soest District
(and Other German SEAs)," Ch. 4 in The Practice of Strategic Environmental
Assessment. Therivel, R., and Partidario, M.R., editors, Earthscan
Publications, Ltd., London, England, 1996, pp. 47-61.
Law, R., "The Hong Kong Experience," in "Strategic Environmental
Assessment — Environmental Assessment of Policies — Briefing Papers on
Experience in Selected Countries," de Boer, J.J., and Sadler, B., editors,
Publication No. 54, 1996, Ministry of Housing, Spatial Planning and the
Environment, The Hague, The Netherlands, pp. 57-66.
Le Blanc, P., and Fischer, K., "The Canadian Federal Experience," in
"Strategic Environmental Assessment — Environmental Assessment of
Policies — Briefing Papers on Experience in Selected Countries," de Boer,
J.J., and Sadler, B., editors, Publication No. 54, 1996, Ministry of
Housing, Spatial Planning and the Environment, The Hague, The Netherlands,
pp. 27-37.
Lee, N., and Walsh, F., "Strategic Environmental Assessment: An Overview,"
Project Appraisal. Vol. 7, No. 3, September, 1992, pp. 126-136.
McCarthy, M., "Strategic Environmental Assessment: The Potential for
Development in South Australia," Prelect Appraisal. Vol. 11, No. 3,
September, 1996, pp. 146-152.
7-42
-------
Norris, K., "The European Commission Experience," in "Strateaic
Environmental Assessment — Environmental Assessment of Policies
Briefing Papers on Experience in Selected Countries," de Boer, J j and
Sadler, B., editors, Publication No. 54, 1996, Ministry of Housing,
Spatial Planning and the Environment, The Hague, The Netherlands, pp. 51-
56 »
Partidario, M.R., "SEA Regulations and Guidelines Worldwide," Ch. 2 in
The Practice of strategic Environmental Assessment. Therivel, R. , and
Partidario, M.R., editors, Earthscan Publications, Ltd., London, England.
1996, pp. 15-29. *
Partidario, M.R., and Therivel, R., "Learning from SEA Practice," Ch 14
^" T*C PractJ-ee °* Strategic Environmental AMM«n»n».. Therivel, R., and
Partidarro, M.R., editors, Earthscan Publications, Ltd., London, Enaland
1996, pp. 181-188.
Pinfield, C., "Strategic Environmental Assessment and Land Use Planning,"
Proiect Appraisal. Vol. 7, No. 3, September, 1992, pp. 157-164.
Rumble, J., and Therivel, R., "SEA of Hertfordshire County Council's
Structure Plan," Ch. 9 in The Practice of Strategic Environmental
Assessment. Therivel, R., and Partidario, M.R., editors, Earthscan
Publications, Ltd., London, England, 1996, pp. 115-129.
Sadler, B., and Verheem, R., "Strategic Environmental Assessment —
Status, Challenges, and Future Directions," Publication No. 53, 1996,
Ministry of Housing, Spatial Planning and the Environment, The Hague, The
Netherlands, pp. 27-29, 49, 73-79, 108-109, 147-149, and 173.
Sheate, W.R., "Strategic Environmental Assessment in the Transport
Sector," Proiect Appraisal. Vol. 7, No. 3, September, 1992, pp. 137-142.
Sigal, L.L., and Webb, J.W., "The Programmatic Environmental Impact
Statement: Its Purpose and Use," The Environmental Professional. Vol. 11,
No. 1, 1989, pp. 14-24.
Sippe, R.A., "The Australian State Experience — Western Australia," in
"Strategic Environmental Assessment ~ Environmental Assessment of
Policies — Briefing Papers on Experience in Selected Countries," de Boer,
J.J., and Sadler, B., editors, Publication No. 54, 1996, Ministry of
Housing, Spatial Planning and the Environment, The Hague, The Netherlands,
pp. 5-26.
Skewes-Cox, A., "SEA of the San Joaquin County General Plan 2010,
California, US," Ch. 11 in The Practice of Strateaic Environmental
Assessment. Therivel, R., and Partidario, M.R., editors, Earthscan
Publications, Ltd., London, England, 1996, pp. 141-154.
Therivel, R., "SEA Methodology in Practice," Ch. 3 in The Practice of
Strategic Environmental Assessment. Therivel, R., and Partidario, M.R.,
editors, Earthscan Publications, Ltd., London, England, 1996, pp. 30-44.
Therivel, R., and Partidario, M.R., editors. The Practice of Strategic
Environmental Assessment. Earthscan Publications, Ltd., London, England,
1996a.
Therivel, R., and Partidario, M.R., "Introduction," Ch. 1 in Therivel,
R., and Partidario, M.R., editors, The Practice of Strategic Environmental
Assessment. Earthscan Publications, Ltd., London, England, 1996b, pp. 3-
14.
7-43
-------
Therivel, R., Wilson, E., Thompson, S., Heaney, D., and Pritchard, 0.,
Strategic Environmental Assessment. Earthscan Publications, Ltd., London,
England, 1992, pp. 13, 19-20, 29, 35-36, 41-42, 46-47, 54-55, 57, and 71-
72.
Verheem, R., "Environmental Assessments at the Strategic Level in the
Netherlands," Project Appraisal. Vol. 7, No. 3, September, 1992, pp. 150-
156.
Verheem, R., "SEA of the Dutch Ten-Year Programme on Haste Management
1992-2002," Ch. 7 in The Practice of Strategic Environmental Assessment.
Therivel, R., and.Partidario, M.R., editors, Earthscan Publications, Ltd.,
London, England, 1996, pp. 86-94.
Webb, J.W., and Sigal, L.L., "SEA of an Environmental Restoration and
Haste Management Programme, United States," Ch. 5 in The Practice of
Strategic Environmental Assessment. Therivel, R., and Partidario, M.R.,
editors, Earthscan Publications, Ltd., London, England, 1996, pp. 62-72.
Webb, J.W., and Sigal, L.L., "Strategic Environmental Assessment in the
United States," Project Appraisal. Vol. 7, No. 3, September, 1992, pp.
137-142.
Wiseman, K., "Strategic Environmental Assessment (SEA): A Primer," CSZR
Report ENV/S-RR 96001, September 1996, Division of Water, Environment and
Forest Technology, CSIR, Stellenbosch, South Africa.
Wood, C., "Strategic Environmental Assessment in Australia and New
Zealand," Project Appraisal. Vol. 7, No. 3, September, 1992, pp. 143-149.
Wood, C., and Dejeddour, M., "Strategic Environmental Assessment: EA of
Policies, Plans, and Programmes," Impact Assessment Bulletin. Vol. 10, No.
1, 1992, pp. 3-22.
World Bank, "Coastal Zone Management and Environmental Assessment,"
Environmental Assessment Sourcebook Update No. 7, March, 1994, Washington,
D.C.
World Bank, "Environmental Assessment Sourcebook — Volume I: Policies,
Procedures, and Cross-Sectoral Issues," 1991, Washington, D.C.
World Bank, "Regional Environmental Assessment," Environmental Assessment
Sourcebook Update No. IS, June, 1996, Washington, D.C.
World Bank, "Sectoral Environmental Assessment," Environmental Assessment
Sourcebook Update No. 4, October, 1993, Washington, D.C.
7-44
-------
CHAPTER 8
CEA CASE STUDIES
Because the practice of CEA is relatively new, value can be gained
from the review of case studies. Accordingly, Table 8.1 identifies over
30 examples from a variety of types of projects, plans, or programs which
include CEA. A systematic review of the CEAs on 10 Canadian case studies
has recently been conducted. The types of projects, locations, and major
VECa are shown in Table 8.2 (Cumulative Effects Assessment Working Group,
1997). Based upon this review, the following lessons were derived
(Cumulative Effects Assessment Working Group, 1997):
(1) Assessment of cumulative effects on some components is
relatively straight forward if quantitative tools and
thresholds are available (e.g., for regulated constituents of
air and water).
(2) Qualitative conclusions and ranking systems are useful to
communicate results if supported by defensible quantitative
analysis.
(3) Incremental changes caused by the project under review should
be measured relative to an established baseline condition.
(4) Assess effects during "snapshot" points in time.
(5) Perform an assessment from the point of view of effects on
VECs as opposed to interactions between actions.
(6) Interactions do not need to be assessed individually;
characterize the entire surrounding environment as it
"appears" to each VEC.
(7) Other past and existing actions become part of the background
environment for a VEC.
(8) Lack of information regarding other actions may limit the
assessment of their contribution to effects.
(9) As many disturbances are temporary, effects often recover
within an acceptable period of time.,
(10) Induced activities (e.g., road proliferation) may be an
important cause of effects.
REVIEW OF EISs — SOMB BRIEF CASE STUDIES
Several EISs have been selected and systematically reviewed relative
to how cumulative impacts were addressed (Kamath, 1993). Two examples
will be briefly highlighted — the Elk Creek Lake project of the U.S. Amy
Corps of Engineers in the Rogue River Basin in Oregon (U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers, 1991), and the Monticello B-2 area surface lignite mine
proposed by the Texas Utilities Mining Company (TUMCO) in Titus County,
Texas (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 1990).
8-1
-------
Table 8.1: Examples of Case Studies Involving CEA
Case Study
Uranium mines development in northern
Saskatchewan, Canada
Incremental land developments in the greater
Toronto portion of the Oak Ridges Moarine land
form in Ontario, Canada
Military air defense training areas in New
Brunswick, Canada
Expansion of an existing gas gathering system
associated with gas development activities in
the Great Sand Hills area of Saskatchewan,
Canada
Expansion of ski development and construction
of two golf courses in the Eastern Slopes area
of Alberta, Canada
Natural gas development in northeast British
Co lumb ia , Canada
Regional planning in the Greater Vancouver
region of British Columbia, Canada
Regional studies of water quality and
fisheries impacts of small hydropower projects
in the San Joaquin and Owens River Basins in
California; and the Ohio River Basin in Ohio,
Pennsylvania, and West Virginia; in the USA
Open cut mining of black coal in Australia
Coastal zone regional development in Australia
Bleached kraft paper mill in Alberta, Canada
Coal mine in Alberta, Canada
Oil pipeline in Alberta, Canada
Spent nuclear fuel management program at the
Savannah River Site in South Carolina in the
USA
Nationwide study of managing radioactive and
hazardous wastes from nuclear defense
activities in the USA
Reference
Damman, Grossman, and
Sadar (1995); Dupuis
and Hegmann (1997); and
Zukowsky and Gates
(1994)
Danman, Cressman, and
Sadar (1995)
Barnes and Hestworth
(1994)
Bennett (1994)
Bennett (1994)
Antoniuk (1994)
Colnett (1991)
Cada and Huns acker
(1990)
Court, Wright, and
Guthrie (1994)
Court, Wright, and
Guthrie (1994)
Dupuis and Hegmann
(1997)
Dupuis and Hegmann
(1997)
Dupuis and Hegmann
(1997)
U.S. Department of
Energy (1995a)
U.S. Department of
Energy (1995b)
8-2
-------
Table 8.1 (continued):
Oil and gas exploration, development, and
production activities associated with four
outer continental shelf regions (Atlantic,
Gulf of Mexico, Pacific, and Alaska) in the
USA
Lease sales of recoverable oil and gas
resources in two areas of the outer
continental shelf in the Gulf of Mexico region
in the USA
Hazardous waste facility in Ontario, Canada
Cumulative social impacts from resource
development activities in several aboriginal
communities in western Australia
Expansion of existing oil sands mining,
extraction, and upgrading facility in
northeastern Alberta, Canada
Oil and gas leasing and development in New
Mexico in the USA
Housing/urban development project in McKinney,
Texas in the USA
Installation and operation of Doppler weather
radar facilities at airports in the USA
Surface water reservoir project in the Rogue
River Basin in Oregon in the USA
Surface lignite mine in Texas in the USA
Multiple permit applications for surface and
underground coal mines in Tennessee in the USA
Vegetation management in designated national
forests in the Pacific Northwest region of the
USA
Boll weevil cooperative control program in the
USA
CEA of historical development and resource
removal projects in the Fraser River Estuary
area in western Canada
Forest exploitation and forestry management in
New Brunswick Province in Canada
CEA of development projects on the harvesting
of renewable resources in northern Canada
Comparative review of 10 case studies in
Canada (industrial plant, three mines, heavy
oil extraction, residential development,
hydroelectric dam, highway, highway and
railway, and recreational trail)
Van Horn, Melancon, and
Sun (1988)
Minerals Management
Service (1995)
Lawrence (1994)
Ross (1990)
Smith (1994)
Canter and Kamath (1995)
Canter and Kamath (1995)
Canter and Kamath (1995)
Canter and Kamath (1995)
Canter and Kamath (1995)
Myslicki (1993)
Myslicki (1993)
Myslicki (1993)
Sonntag, et al. (1987)
Sonntag, et al. (1967)
Sonntag, et al. (1987)
Cumulative Effects
Assessment Working Group
(1997)
8-3
-------
Table 8.2: Case Studies Subjected to Systematic Review (after
Cumulative Effect* Assessment Working Group, 1997)
Project
Alberta-Pacific Pulp Mill
Northern Saskatchewan
Uranium Mines
Cold Lake Oil Sands
Project
Cheviot Coal Mine
Huckleberry Copper Mine
Eagle Terrace Sub-
division
Keenleyside Power Project
Trans-Canada Highway
Twinning Phase I HA
Transportation Corridors
(Glacier and Banff
National Parks)
La Mauricie National Park
Hiking Trail
AB « Alberta
SA * Saskatchewan
BC * British Columbia
QU * Quebec
Type of
Project
Industrial
process
Mines
(underground)
In-situ heavy
oil
Mine (open-pit
coal)
Mine (open-pit
base metal)
Residential
development
Hydro-electric
dam
Highway
Highway,
Railway
Recreational
trail
Major VECs
Water
All
Water
Wildlife,
water
Water, fish
Wildlife
Water, fish
Wildlife
Visual
Wildlife
Location
AB
SA
AB
AB
BC
AB
BC
AB
BC
QU
8-4
-------
Elk Creek Lake. Rooue River Basin. Oregon
The Elk Creek Lake project was authorized by the Flood Control Act
of 1962 a* one of the three multiple-purpose dams in the Rogue River
Basin. The three dams, namely, the Lost Creek Lake Dam, the Applegate
Lake Dam and the Elk Creek Lake Dam were designed to operate as a system
to reduce flooding in the Rogue River Basin, and also to accomplish the
additional purposes of water supply, irrigation, fish and wildlife
enhancement, hydropower, and recreation (see Figure 8.1). While the
construction of dams at Lost Creek and Applegate were completed,
construction at the Elk Creek Lake was stopped as a suit was filed by the
Oregon Natural Resources Council in the U.S. District Court based on the
allegation that the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers had not fully complied
with the provisions of the NEPA before beginning construction of the Elk
Creek Dam. The Federal Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals found that the 19BO
EIS Supplement was deficient in several aspects, including inadequate
consideration of the cumulative impacts of the three dams (U.S. Army Corps
of Engineers, 1991). The 1991 EIS Supplement mainly focused on the
shortcomings of the earlier one and took into account the concerns
identified by the Oregon Natural Resources Council and comments received
in response to the scoping notice (U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, 1991).
This summary targets the cumulative impacts addressed in the 1991 EIS
Supplement.
The 1991 EIS Supplement evaluated two levels of alternatives for the
Elk Creek Lake project. In the first level, the alternatives were the
proposed action (completing the project), and no action, which means that
the project would not be constructed. In the second level, the
alternatives addressed the operation of the project (if it were to be
completed) and the disposal of the existing structure (if the no action
alternative were selected). Details on the environmental effects of the
alternatives are in the EIS Supplement (U.S. Army Corps of Engineers,
1991). The following subsections summarize the short-term, long-term and
cumulative impacts due to the three dams on the physical environment,
biological environment, and regional economics in the study area (U.S.
Army Corps of Engineers, 1991).
(a) Physical Environment
The topography of the Elk Creek basin is characterized by
mountainous terrain with long, rounded ridgetops, steep slopes, and
moderate to high etream gradients. The geology of Elk Creek watershed is
composed of 60% rhyolite flowrock and pyroclastics.
The soils in the watershed have been mapped by the Corps of
Engineers, Bureau of Land Management (BLM), U.S. Forest Service (USFS),
and the Soil Conservation Service (SCS). There is controversy due to
apparent difference between the SCS soil survey and the 1980 Elk Creek
Lake EIS Supplement No. 1, with respect to soil-turbidity relationships.
The discrepancy found is that the SCS and Corps soil maps depict different
soil units and this raises the question of whether or not changes in the
soil and geologic data have a significant effect on the predictions made
by the reservoir water quality model, as this model uses statistical
relationships to derive turbidity values and does not use soil or geology
data for input. With respect to the reservoir area, long-term turbidity
producing soils were identified by intensive empirical testing.
The Elk Creek project site has been subjected to minor damages
caused by earthquakes; however, faults mapped in the vicinity of the
project are inactive. The loss of rock resources for construction of Elk
Creek Dam and the relocated County Road_ 941, and gravel deposits which
would be inundated by the flood pool, comprise the greatest effects of dam
8-5
-------
03
,'„
i
I
Rogue River Basin Map
Applegale Dam
Elk Creak Dam
( Loil Craak Dam
Flgura M,J: Rogua RLv«r Baaln Map (U.S. Amy Corpa of Engln««r«, 1991)
-------
construction on the geologic resources of the Elk Creek watershed. Also
affected will be the gravel recruitment process whereby sediments are
continuously being transferred downslope from the upper reaches of the
watershed to the lower reaches. This is a very long-term process in
streams with gravel beds such as Elk Creek.
The combined geomorphological effects of Elk Creek, Lost Creek, and
Applegate Dame on the Rogue River are insignificant due to the stable
characteristics of the gravel bed streams. Erosion within the reservoir
area is dependent upon soil type, vegetative cover, exposure to wind and
wave action, and slope angles. Seismicity will be unaffected by Elk Creek
Dam and likewise, no significant elope stability effects are expected as
a result of dam construction.
The climate of the Rogue River Basin is characterized by mild, wet
winters and warm, dry summers. The streamflow regime of the Rogue River
and its tributaries is similar to the precipitation pattern. Low flows
occur from July through September or October, and moderate to high flows
occur during the remainder of the year. The results of evaluation of the
different alternative* showed that for two periods, namely, the reservoir
filling (February through April) and the reservoir drawdown periods (July
through October), the conservation storage and release seasons have the
greatest effects on downstream flows.
The two major factors considered in water quality are water
temperature and turbidity. The construction of the dam to impound water
not only changes the flow regime of the river, but also creates a
reservoir that acts as a thermal regulator to the aquatic system.
Analysis of the cumulative impacts of operating Elk Creek Dam on the water
temperatures in the Rogue River demonstrated that the effects would be
minimal; therefore, no adverse effects on water temperature from the-
addition of Elk Creek Lake to the existing system are anticipated. Rogue
River Basin waters exhibit highly turbid characteristics during, and
immediately following, high runoff events in the watershed. It was
determined that turbidity levels at the confluence of the Elk Creek with
the Rogue River would show very little effects due to releases from Elk
Creek Dam, and without the dam, the water quality in the Rogue River would
continue to be the same due to the already existing dams.
(b) Biological Environment
The Rogue River has historically supported in-river sport fisheries
for spring Chinook and fall Chinook salmon, coho salmon, and summer and
winter steelhead. Salmon species have also contributed to a large
commercial and sport troll fishery in the nearby Pacific Ocean. With
construction of the Lost Creek Dam, blockage to the passage of anadromous
fish in the Rogue River occurred and their production from upstream no
longer occurs. Augmented summer flows, lower summer temperatures, and
higher winter temperatures in the Applegate River resulting from the
operation of the Applegate Lake project primarily affect fall Chinook
salmon and winter steelhead.
With the Elk Creek project the potential effects of changes in
flows, water temperatures, and turbidity on fish production and fishing
activity were evaluated for different operating alternatives, and the
survival of Chinook and steelhead eggs during flood control operations has
been demonstrated.
A two step process was used to determine wildlife habitat values,
project effects, and appropriate mitigation measures. **»*£•*£*•**
Wildlife Service's (USFWS) Habitat Evaluation Procedures (HEP) were used
to assess habitat impacts associated with the three Rogue River Basin
8-7
-------
project*. Cumulatively, the completion of Elk Creek Lake in combination
with the two existing Rogue Basin projects would result in direct habitat
degradation and/or loss on 6,770 acres of a land base estimated at 18,024
acres (see Table 8.3) (U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, 1991).
The project would affect bald eagles in the short-run through a
reduction in available prey. Long-term impacts were estimated to have a
positive effect on bald eagles due to development of a fisheries resource
in the Elk Creek basin coupled with management strategies. Again, the
project would have no effect on peregrines beyond a possible minor, short-
term reduction in prey availability. Therefore, given the retention of
trees in the Elk Creek Lake, adjacent mature forested habitat, and
establishment of a warm water fishery, bald eagles are expected to
establish a territory at Elk Creek Lake some 5-10 years post inundation;
therefore, the cumulative impacts on bald eagles arising from construction
and operation of the overall Rogue River Basin projects will be positive.
(c) Recreation and Economics
Changes in the river flow caused by operation of Elk Creek Lake, in
conjunction with Lost Creek and Applegate Lakes, may have some effects on
recreational usage of the Rogue River downstream. The degree and type of
effects would vary depending on whether the lake is operated at full
storage capacity, at a minimum flood control pool, or with no conservation
pool.
The total cost of construction for Elk Creek dam and reservoir is
presently estimated to be $183,000,000. The positive cumulative impacts
associated with construction employment and income are judged to be
significant. Over 10,000 acres of land formerly in private ownership has
been converted to project lands and removed from the county tax rolls. A
natural increase in tourism has occurred with the projects. Economic
impacts with respect to operation and maintenance requirements of Elk
Creek are expected to be minimal.
(d) Synopsis of Cumulative Impacts
There were four concerns associated with the 1980 EIS Supplement and
one of them was that the cumulative impacts of Elk Creek Lake in
conjunction with the Lost Creek and Applegate Lakes were not adequately
addressed. The 1991 EIS Supplement addressed and evaluated the cumulative
impacts of the three Rogue Basin projects using mathematical models and
checklists. The assessment used both qualitative and quantitative
information. Wildlife impact evaluation was accomplished using HEP.
Economic effects due to the three projects have also been evaluated. In
general, the 1991 EIS Supplement provided a systematic and quantitative
basis for addressing cumulative impacts.
Montieello B-2 Area Surface Lignite Mine—Titus County. Texas
The Montieello B-2 Surface Lignite Mine proposed by Texas Utilities
Mining Company (TUMCO) is a new source for discharging pollutants and the
new source National Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit is
considered to be a major federal action significantly affecting the
quality of human environment. Therefore, this draft EIS was prepared to
assess the potential environmental consequences of EPA's New Source NPDES
permit action (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 1990).
The surface lignite mine is located near Mount Pleasant in Titus
County, Texas; the study area encompasses approximately 13,650 acres with
lignite reserves estimated at about 80 million tons (see Figure 8.2). The
8-8
-------
Table 8.3: Cumulative Wildlife Habitat Impacts for Elk Creek, Lost Creek,
and Applegate Project*, Rogue River Basin Projects, Oregon
(U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, 1991)
Project Acreage
Impacted Acreage
Target Species
Beechey Ground Squirrel
Western Bluebird
Mallard
American Kestrel
Pileated Woodpecker
Black-tailed Deer
Roosevelt Elk
Western Terrestrial
Garter Snake
Elk Creek
3521
1459
-700
-1002
658
-905
-365
-711
-646
-213
Lost
Creek
8384
4052
Applegate
6119
1259
Summary
18024
6770
Net Loss in AAHU's
-283
-2212
1156
-1938
-1729
-2083
-1208
-1540
-22
-629
302
-577
-553
-643
0
-551
-1005
-3743
2116
-3420
-2647
-3437
-1854
-2304
AAHU = annualized average habitat units
8-9
-------
I ~"*|snjoi
V TEXAS r"
Figur* 8.2: Location Map of Montieallo B-2 Study ATM (U.S. Znvironnwntal
Protactlon Agency, 1990)
8-10
-------
mine will be owned and operated by TUMCO, which is a wholly owned
subsidiary of Texas Utilities Company. The recovered lignite IB for use
by Texas Utilities Electric Company (T.U. Electric) at the Monticello
Steam Electric Station (MOSES) in Titus County, in the vicinity of Mount
Pleasant. The mining operation is planned to be by surface techniques
utilizing draglines as the primary overburden-reraoval equipment. The
lignite will be hauled from the immediate mining area to a train loading
station, and from that point transported by train to the Monticello power
station utilizing the T.U. Electric railroad system. The project will
require the construction of certain site facilities such as haul roads,
surface-water control structures, service roads, and transmission lines in
support of the mining operation.
The B-2 mining area will supplement the production of lignite along
with other mining areas, in order to maintain the required annual
production level to sustain the generating units. of the T.U. Electric
operated MOSES, and is required to be in operation in 1992. The quantity
of reserves available currently from the Winfield and Thermo sites is
inadequate to fuel MOSES for the minimum anticipated facility life of 35
years, and the loss of generating capability at MOSES prior to the end of
the useful life of the generating units would result in an economic
hardship to T.U. Electric. Moreover, the conversion of the Monticello
units to use alternate fuels would significantly increase the capital and
operating costs of the plant, and hence result in the inability to supply
low-cost electricity to the consumer.
The environmental consequences due to the Monticello B-2 lignite
mine project on several environmental categories are delineated in the EIS
(U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 1990). TUMCO' s total mining
operations (existing and proposed) directly affects approximately 30,000
acres. This mining will exhibit a number of short-term and long-term,
adverse and beneficial cumulative impacts. Table 8.4 summarizes the
cumulative impacts on different environmental categories due to the mining
activities by TUMCO (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 1990).
This EIS used a qualitative checklist to address and assess
cumulative impacts. Appropriate potential impacts were addressed, but
quantification of impacts would definitely help in decision making. In
addition, cumulative impacts in terms of other existing mines in the area,
when coupled with the potential impacts of the Monticello B-2 mine, were
not adequately addressed.
SELECTED REFERENCES
Antoniuk, T.M., "Cumulative Effects of Natural Cas Development in
Northeast British Columbia," Ch. 19, Cumulative Effects Assessment In
Canada! from Conee^ to Practice, Kennedy, A.J., editor, Alberta
Association of Professional Biologists, Edmonton, Alberta, Canada, 1994,
pp. 239-252.
Barnes, J.L., and Westworth, D.A., "A Methodological Framework for
Cumulative Effects Assessment," Ch. 6, cumulative Effects Assessment in
Canada* Prom Cancmtat. to Practice. Kennedy, A.J., editor, Alberta
AssociatioTof SSSioSl Biologilts, Edmonton, Alberta, Canada, 1994,
pp. 67-80.
Bennett, J.Y., "Strategies and Opportunities for Cumulative
Mitigation in Canada," Ch. 9, cumulative Effects Assessment In g«n*
-------
Table 8.4: Cumulative Impacts Summary Table for Mining Project
(U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 1990)
Environmental
Category
Cumulative Impacts
Topography
Regulations require that post-mined lands be
returned to their approximate original
contour, no irretrievable commitment and no
long tern cumulative impacts are
anticipated.
Geology
Mining mixes sand and gravel deposits in the
overburden with silts and clays reducing its
commercial value, constituting an
unavoidable, long term, adverse impact and
irretrievable commitment of resources.
Soils
Replacement by reconstructed soils following
mining will result in changes to the
physical and chemical properties of the
surface soils. Adverse impacts include short
term increases in erosion rates until
vegetation can be re-established.
Ground Water
Flow conditions and the localized area
projected to experience water level declines
from dewatering and/or depressurization
activities.
Surface Hater
Small incremental impacts on water quality
and quantity resulting from the individual
mining projects and due to geographic
separation between the projects, no adverse
cumulative impacts are anticipated.
Vegetation
Primary cumulative adverse impact results
from the loss of habitat and naturally
occurring drainage features, which require
extended periods to fully re-establish
following reclamation.
Wildlife
Resources
Primary cumulative adverse impact results
from the loss of wildlife habitat. This
loss is considered a major long-term adverse
impact.
Aquatic Resources
Losses include decreases in some fish and
larval insect species. This minor net loss
in the aquatic energy base is expected to be
a short-term impact.
8-12
-------
Table 8.4: (continued)
Air Quality
Adverse cumulative impact* associated with
fugitive dust from surface mines, lignite
pil««» and haul roads, and equipment
exhausts are not expected due to the large
character of such emissions. These large
particles tend to settle out of the
atmosphere within a short distance of their
emission point.
Sound Quality
Due to attenuation of sound levels with
distance, no adverse cumulative impacts are
anticipated resulting from noise.
Cultural
Resources
A total of 354 recorded cultural resources
sites will be affected and with survey,
testing and/or mitigation of significant
sites, recovery of cultural resources data
will lessen the adverse impacts.
Post-Mining Land
Use
Even though post-mining land use is
consistent with existing land use, the
cumulative effect of mining/reclamation over
the life of TUMCO's mining is a long-term
increase in improved over unimproved/natural
conditions. Temporary adverse impacts on
land use and productivity will occur until
reclamation takes place.
Socioeconomics
The TUMCO mining operations in the area
cumulatively provide an important economic
factor in a region that experiences a higher
unemployment rate than the state as a whole.
But, cumulative impacts are not expected to
be greatly exceed existing employment levels
because of local transfers of personnel.
Environmental
Category
Demand for public services should not exceed
existing levels.
Public Health
Due to limited impacts of the individual
minimal activities on public health, no
cumulative impacts with other TUMCO mining
projects are anticipated.
8-13
-------
Cad A, G.F., and Hunsacker, C.T., "Cumulative Impact* of Hydropower
Development: Reaching a Watershed in Impact Assessment,' The
Environmental Professional. Vol. 12, 1990, pp. 2-8.
Canter, L.W., and Kamath, J., "Questionnaire Checklist for Cumulative
Impacts," Environmental Impact Assessment Review. Vol. IS, No. 4, 1995,
pp. 311-339.
Colnett, 0., "Integrating Cumulative Effects Assessment with Regional
Planning," January, 1991, Canadian Environmental Assessment Research
Council, Hull, Quebec, Canada.
Court, J.D., Wright, C.J., and Guthrie, A.C., "Assessment of Cumulative
Impacts and Strategic Assessment in Environmental Impact Assessment,"
1994, Commonwealth Environment Protection Agency, Barton, Australia.
Cumulative Effects Assessment Working Group, "Cumulative Effects
Assessment Practitioners Guide," December, 1997, draft copy, Canadian
Environmental Assessment Agency, Hull, Quebec, Canada, pp. 3, 9, 13, 16,
26, 43, 61, 64, C-l, and C-2.
Damman, D.C., Cressman, D.R., and Sadar, M.H., "Cumulative Effects
Assessment: The Development of Practical Frameworks," Impact Assessment.
Vol. 13, No. 4, December, 1995, pp. 433-454.
Dupuis, S., and Hegmann, G., "Cumulative Effects in Canada: Trends and
Challenges," presented at the 17th Annual Meeting of the International
Association for Impact Assessment, May 28-31, 1997, New Orleans,
Louisiana.
Kamath, J., "Cumulative Impacts: Concept and Assessment Methodology," MSCE
Thesis, January, 1993, University of Oklahoma, Norman, Oklahoma.
Lawrence, D.P., "Cumulative Effects Assessment at the Project Level,"
Impact Assessment. Vol. 12, No. 3, Fall, 1994, pp. 253-273.
Minerals Management Service, "Gulf of Mexico Sales 157 and 161: Central
and Western Planning Areas, Final Environmental Impact Statement, Volume
I: Sections I through IV.C," OCS EIS/EA MMS 95-0058, November, 1995, U.S.
Department of the Interior, New Orleans, Louisiana.
Myslicki, A., "Use of Programmatic EISs in Support of Cumulative Impact
Assessment," Environmental Analysis — The NEPA Experience. Hildebrand,
S.G., and Cannon, J.B., editors, Lewis Publishers, Inc., Boca Raton,
Florida, 1993, pp. 373-390.
Ross, H., "Community Social Impact Assessment: A Framework for Indigenous
Peoples," Environmental Impact Assessment Review. Vol. 10, 1990, pp. 185-
193.
Smith, J.A., "Cumulative Effects Associated with Oil Sands Development in
Northeastern Alberta," Ch. 20, Cumulative Effects Assessment in Canada;
From Concept to Practice. Kennedy, A.J., editor. Alberta Association of
Professional Biologists, Edmonton, Alberta, Canada, 1994, pp. 253-264.
Sonntag, N.C., Everitt, R.R., Rattie, L.P., Colnett, D.L., Wolf, C.P.,
Truett, J.C., Dorcey, A.H., and Rolling, C.S., -Cumulative Effects
Assessment: A Context for Further Research and Development," 1987,
Minister of Supply and Services Canada, Hull, Quebec, Canada, pp. ix-x, 7-
10, and 15-20.
8-14
-------
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, "A Habitat Evaluation System for Water
Resources Planning," August, 1980, Lower Mississippi Valley Division,
Vicksburg, Mississippi.
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, "Final Environmental Impact Statement,
Supplement No. 2 — Elk Creek Lake, Rogue River Basin, Oregon," Hay, 1991,
Portland District, Portland, Oregon.
U.S. Department of Energy, "Draft Haste Management Programmatic
Environmental Impact Statement for Managing, Treatment, Storage, and
Disposal of Radioactive and Hazardous Waste," DOE/EIS-0200-D-Summ, August,
1995b, Office of Environmental Management, Washington, D.C., pp. 2, 64-70.
U.S. Department of Energy, "Programmatic Spent Nuclear Fuel Management and
Idaho National Engineering Laboratory Environmental Restoration and waste
Management Programs Final Environmental Impact Statement, Vol. 1, Appendix
C, Savannah River Site, Spent Nuclear Fuel Management Program," DOE/EIS-
0203-Vol. 1-App. C, April 1995a, Idaho Operations Office, Idaho Falls,
Idaho.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency., "Environmental Impact Statement —
Monticello B-2 Area Surface Lignite Mine, Titus County, Texas," EPA
906/04-90-003, April, 1990, Dallas, Texas.
Van Horn, W., Melancon, A., and Sun, J., "Oil and Gas Program: Cumulative
Effects," OCS Report MMS-88-005, September, 1988, Minerals Management
Service, U.S. Department of the Interior, Herndon, Virginia.
Zukowsky, R.J., and Gates, T.E., "Regulation of Uranium Mines in Northern
Saskatchewan and Cumulative Effects Assessment, Monitoring, and
Evaluation," Ch. 17, Cumulative Effects Assessment in Canada; From Concept
to Practice. Kennedy, A.J., editor, Alberta Association of Professional
Biologists, Edmonton, Alberta, Canada, 1994, pp. 215-227.
8-15
-------
CHAPTER 9
AIR QUALITY CUMULATIVE EFFECTS ASSESSMENT --
A PRACTICAL EXAMPLE'
Multiple methods and techniques have been developed to assist
environmental planners in assessing the effects of human activities on
their surrounding*. A particular issue of current concern is the
evaluation of the cumulative effects of proposed actions in relation to
nearby past and future actions. However, cumulative effects assessment
(CEA) has been criticized as being too comprehensive and complex to be
incorporated into the project-specific impact assessment process (Dixon
and Montz, 1995). For example, several applicable theories and methods
for conducting CEAs can be found along with ideal attributes that should
be included. Seminars, conferences, and even court cases, have
contributed to what is considered to be necessary for adequate CEA.
Often, however, practitioners tasked with conducting CEAs are left with
multiple theories, methods, ideal components, and suggestions that, while
valuable, do not demonstrate the rudimentary mechanics of how to get the
job done.
This chapter presents a practical application of a method to
identify and offer resolution for the difficulties associated with data
collection, effects prediction, and analysis. The basis is an 8-step
method for cumulative air quality effects assessment (CAQEA) proposed by
Rumrill and Canter (1998b) (see Table 9.1). These steps, which are
described in Chapter 2 herein, incorporate the data collection and
evaluation tasks necessary to generate quantitative air quality cumulative
effects (CEs) information. By applying the steps to a U.S. Air Force base
(AFB), a federal facility subject to the requirements of the National
Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), and the surrounding area, quantitative
and qualitative data can be developed in a format applicable to
significance determination of the effects in context with the direct air
quality effects of an individual major action. The intent is for CEs to
be compiled as an independent document and incorporated by reference into
individual project impact analyses.
The AFB selected represents a typical facility. It is located in
the southwestern section of the United States and consists of a single
mission wing with typical support structure. It has an active flight line
and is not currently scheduled for base closure. The future activities
scheduled are typical of AFBs where the intent is to maintain and improve
the current mission capabilities but not take on new mission
responsibilities. There are no currently existing mission critical
deficiencies. The adjacent city is small (approximately 100,000
residents) but is experiencing gradual linear growth (as projected in the
city growth trends report) within a well established industrial and
commercial economy. Conducting a study of an AFB located near a small
population center with relatively few concerns about ambient air pollution
allows for the exploration of various data limitation scenarios and the
development of evaluation options to apply to each.
"This chapter is co-authored by J.t*. Rumrill (Graduate Student) and
L.H. Canter.
9-1
-------
Table 9.1: Steps for Cumulative Air Quality Effects Assessment (CAQEA) (after Rumrill
and Canter, 1998b)
1. Select definition of CE to be applied in *frg analysis.
soaioaz anu temooxai Dounoanes.
Determine past, pirttflnt.9n^ reasonably foreseeable future action* to be in^triMf in
the
Jysis.
4. Determine h^frfw« ambient air pollutant tniiii^nmtTr»n< god obtain applicable
5. Develop quantitative ?"^ Qualitative gtni^on daT^ estimates for the actions
determined in Step 3.
6, Determine Quantitative an<^ qualitative ghaTtogg JQ baseline air Quality (determined in
Step 4) TpdiitiHp ^rp^ evaluated actions.
7. Evaluate the CE significance in coutext with the air quality ""p*"** of the action
origmaDy generating the NEPA lequimnent and incorporate that significance mto die
L Include mffigarinn opportunities for CEs when ^'«""«"g specific action impact
9-2
-------
STEP 1 — DEFINITION SELECTION
Step 1 involves the selection of a definition for cumulative effec-s
(impacts) to be used throughout the study. The intent is to standard•-e
™*.ntW1""1 •P*1.0*"*? fay * federal agency and thus minimize the
potential for variation between assessors as to their perceptions of the
meaning of CEs. The Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) definition was
selected; it states that cumulative impacts (or CEs) result from
"the incremental impact of the action when added to other
past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions
regardless of what agency undertakes such other actions
Cumulative impacts can result from individually minor but
collectively significant actions taking place over a period of
time" (40 CFR 1508.7 as found in Council on Environmental
Quality, 1996).
The same definition should be applied when considering CEs on other
environmental resources as well as in each individual project
environmental impact study.
STEP 2 — BOUNDARY DETERMINATIONS
Step 2 relates to the determination of spatial and temporal
boundaries for the analysis. Based on discussions and recommendations in
various literature sources, the time frame considered reasonable for air
quality CEA for application to an AFB was 10 years; two years of the
"past" and eight years of the "future." This determination was based on
the availability of past and current air quality data and the relative
degree of certainty that could be applied to AFB and local plans for
future activity.
Regarding spatial boundaries, consideration was given to both the
physical airshed and existing political boundaries. Political boundaries
can influence the number and types of future actions, significance
determinations, and mitigation decisions. Initially, the political
boundaries considered were: (1) the AFB property boundaries; (2) the city
limits; and (3) the county in which the AFB and city are located. The
airshed boundaries were determined to be linked to the prevailing wind
speed and direction. When applying the quantification measures suggested
in Rumrill and Canter (1998a), spatial dimensions can be determined by
considering the distance a theoretical parcel of air would travel given
the prevailing wind speed and direction over a time period considered to
be reasonable for uniform mixing assumptions. For this example,
multiplying the annual average wind speed of 5.66m/sec and a typical
mixing time of 1 hour resulted in a downwind distance roughly equivalent
(approximately 12% larger) to the physical length of the developed land
area of the city. Also, while valuable information was obtained from
county level sources, insufficient data was available to forecast future
development for the entire county. Therefore, the analysis was limited to
the effects of the AFB in context with the surrounding city. The total
geographical area was approximately 268 sq. km (see Figure 9.1).
STEP 3 — ACTIVITIES TO EVALUATE
Step 3 requires the identification of past, present, and reasonably
foreseeable future actions (RFFAs). The 8-Step Conservative Determination
Method for RFFAs proposed by Rumrill and Canter (1997) (see Figure 9.2)
was applied to the determination of RFFAs. The Method was based upon an
analysis of the principles included in over 40 U.S. court cases related to
9-3
-------
18,288m
Approximate City Limits
t
Wind Direction
^^Ml^^•••^^•^•^^^•W
g^^ ..*$m,
m
rN.'w^tfsaj^i'.kj" "p-."xk.-M JfBiB ^ilftiy •> 1-' >yff
ll^iip^^&^iiii
?.\.«•.':•:>:-:••• ' ;:i^>>:>:::'.
14,630 m
Figure 9.1: Approximate Geographical Area for Analysis
9-4
-------
Stepl
Step 2
Be
mdariesfcrtfacCEA I
RFFA
RFFA
RFFA
WTA
tau
no— V> Exclude from Analysis
v
Step 3
Forecast Future Activities within Boundaries
Step 4
FVHhlfltP PiMiiiWtmln*!!.
v
DO
JDVGSted
no
Step 6
Determine Planning Document Rcla
witfaJQ Bouodanes
._ ^ Q»1«Knn«hfrM Tocut?
—
I
Step?
Evaluate SifisificaDce
Sixnificaot? ~^^ DO
-> Exclude activity fionaaalysis
J«
Include RFFA in CEA
StepS
Figure 9.2: 8^tq)MFFADetenninaiioBMed»od(FjiiniiU^
9-5
-------
RFFAs. Step 1 of the RFFA method, the determination of boundaries,
overlaps with Step 2 of the overall method utilized herein. The initial
boundary determinations were made prior to addressing activities (past,
present, and RFFAs), however, adjustments were made due to identified data
gaps resulting from information gained in this portion of the analysis.
Past and present activities were considered to be incorporated into
the existing air quality determination (Step 4 in Table 9.1). Activities
addressed included: major, permitted sources; natural gas combustion from
non-permitted (including household) furnaces and boilers; road vehicle
use; non—road vehicle use (e.g., aircraft, lawnmowers, etc.); and fugitive
emission from solvents, adhesives, paint, waxes, etc.
The RFFA determination steps outline an evaluation process for
rational inclusion and exclusion decisions regarding future activities.
It is not meant to restrict the assessor from gathering data relative to
a specific step prior to the completion of all previous steps. In this
case, the requirement for identifying formal proposals within the subject
agency (Step 2 in Figure 9.2) was satisfied by review of the capital
improvements program section of the AFB comprehensive development plan
(CDP). This AFB plan provided information on over 200 formal and informal
development activities from 1996 to 2004. Informal projects were
identified with the phrase "project not scoped." The proposals included
in this plan were limited to those with an estimated construction of
$75,000 or greater. Smaller projects activities are typically not
projected beyond one year. However, several of the projects that are
included in the COP would qualify for categorical exclusion under the
environmental impact assessment (EIA) process. Due to the apparent
comprehensive effort by others in including future actions in the capital
improvements program, no further efforts were made herein to identify AFB
proposals.
The city planning office was contacted to determine what, if any,
future actions were planned. It was found that the city did not have a
comprehensive plan, however, other planning documents were available. The
city had a current version of a transportation development plan which
included over 100 transportation-related development projects over a 20
year period from 1995 to 2015. Additionally, the city planning office was
able to provide a growth trends study showing the historical population
and housing trends from 1985 to 1995. These trends were used to forecast
future population estimates and housing requirements. Table 9.2 presents
the method used to project future populations and housing requirements.
The housing requirement projections resulted in annual informal housing
subdivision construction projects necessary to meet the anticipated need.
Interviews with the city planning staff revealed that no other major
government or private development projects were anticipated over the
duration of the study time frame.
The resultant list of approximately 300 "future projects" (200 AFB
projects and 100 city projects) was evaluated through application of Steps
4 through 8 of the RFFA determination method in Figure 9.2. The
evaluation of AFB informal proposals and city formal and informal
proposals for Steps 4 through 6 were relatively simple. All AFB informal
proposals were identified within existing development program categories
(e.g., pavement improvement plan projects), therefore, connections were
easily identified. City formal proposals were identified in goal-oriented
planning documents applicable within the defined boundaries, and informal
proposals were developed from the planning document trend projections.
From this list, in Step 7 of Figure 9.2, a total of 145 RFFAs were
identified where air emissions were expected and could be estimated and
quantified. However, the original list of 300 future projects could be
9-6
-------
Table 9.2: Sample Calculations for Population 3rd Dwelling Unit Projections
1. Project Future Populations
From city giuwtii trends report
Year
1980
1990
1996
Report shows that the chy has exper
with no period of decline.
94,201
96,259
102,790
steady population increases from 1990 to 1996
Average
Jii
: (1990-1996) = (102,790 - 96,259)76 = 1088 pcoplc/yr
Year
1997
1998
1999
102,790+1088= 103,878
103,878+1088= 104,966
104,966 +1088= 106,054
2. Project Future Dwelling Unit Volumes
From city giuwili ueuds report
- Net change in city dwelling *""** for 1985 to 1995 = +1,408
- 1996 total city dwelling units = 41,259
Average annual dwelling unit increase = 1408/10 = 141 unhs/yr
41^59+141-
41,400+141=
41,541 + 141 -
41,400
41,541
41,682
9-7
-------
used when considering other media (water, soil, socio-economics, ere.)
effects within a complete CEA.
STEP A — BASELINE AMBIENT AIR QUALITY DETERMINATIONS
Step 4 of the CAQEA method (Table 9.1) involves the determination of
baseline ambient air quality and the identification of applicable
standards. From the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA)
Aerometric Information Retrieval System (AIRS), it was determined that the
study area was represented by one PM,0 monitoring station with an annual
average concentration of 19 ug/af. The area is considered to be in
attainment for all criteria pollutants; however, observed data was not
available for the other pollutants. Air quality information can also be
obtained from the USEPA regional office with jurisdiction over the study
area. Lack of ambient monitoring data is a situation common to several
areas across the United States; nonetheless, information can be obtained,
or developed, to represent (or be indicative of) current conditions. One
approach is to conduct a complete emissions inventory for the area
determined by the spatial boundaries. Once the emission inventory for the
area is complete, either the inventory itself can be used as the baseline
for comparing future events to current conditions, or modeling tools can
be employed to estimate the ambient concentrations. Methods for the
development of the emission inventory for the current conditions, or
modeling tools can be employed to estimate the ambient concentrations.
Methods for the development of the emission inventory for the current
conditions, as well as future activities, are presented in the discussion
of Step 5.
STEP 5 — EMISSION ESTIMATES
Step 5 is focused on the development of quantitative and qualitative
emissions estimates for the activities included in the analysis. To
present a cumulative perspective, the operational effect of these actions
must be included as well as the construction phase effects. Additionally,
these effects should be presented in context with other activities in the
area that produce measurable air quality effects.
For this example, the emissions estimates, both for the initial
existing conditions and for the future year projections, were segregated
into construction and operational activities for both the city and the
AFB. Emission estimates were compiled for five pollutants: carbon
monoxide (CO), volatile organic compounds (VOCs), oxides of nitrogen (NO,),
sulfur oxides (SO,), and particulates (PM,0). VOCs estimates were compiled
as an ozone (O,) indicator, while particulate lead was omitted due to its
low level of concern within the subject area. Emissions from stationary
sources were estimated using information found in Compilation of Air
Pollution Emission Factors (AP-42), Volume I, Stationary, Point, and Area
Sources (USEPA, 1995) and Supplement B to Compilation of Air Pollution
Emission Factors (AP-42), Volume I, Stationary, Point, and Area Sources
(USEPA, 1996). Following the presentation of the developed emission
inventory summaries, the remaining sub-sections under Step 5 provide
examples of emission-related information on various source categories.
Annual Summaries
Once the emissions estimates were developed for the operational and
construction activities within the spatial and temporal boundaries, the
cumulative emission estimates were organized into chronological sequence.
Annual summary periods were selected based on the level of detail of
9-8
-------
information provided. Project proposal information collected was
categorized by either calendar or fiscal year. For calendar year (CY)
based proposals, it was assumed that all construction emissions could be
applied to the CY in which the project was scheduled. Operational
emissions resulting from those proposals were applied in the year
immediately following the construction year and every year thereafter for
the remainder of the study period. Fiscal year projections are linked to
budgetary allotments. The U.S. federal government fiscal year (FY) begins
on October 1 and ends on September 30. For example, FY98 begins October
1, 1997 and runs through September 30, 1998. Typically, funding for
projects is not released to AFBs until the second quarter of the FY (e.g.,
January-March 1998). Due to time requirements for bid solicitation,
contract award, and material delivery and staging, construction emissions
resulting from FY projected proposals were applied to the CY after the FY
(e.g., FY97 project construction emissions in CY98). The resulting
operational emissions could be applied in the same manner as for CY
proposals.
Table 9.3 presents a sample annual summary (1996) for the study
area. The key contributors to the emission levels resulting from city
activities include operational activities such as on-road vehicle use,
stationary source industrial emissions, and off-road small engine
operations. The key AFB operational activities include aircraft
operations, on-road vehicle use, and stationary source operations. For
both the city and the AFB, the primary construction activity emission
source was pavement construction.
Operational Activities — Ma-ior Sources
Development of the cumulative emission estimate began with the
current stationary source emission inventory for the AFB. Incorporation
of this existing document saves time and provides information on specific
activities that may be useful as surrogate data for future activity
emissions. The emission inventory for an AFB can be obtained from the air
quality manager in the base environmental compliance office.
Major stationary source emissions for the city, or other federal
facility, activities may be obtained either through the state air quality
office or through the USEPA regional office. Depending on the level of
detail requested on individual sources it may be necessary to process a
Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request. Some states, however, maintain
a separate document, or data file, containing summary emission data for
each major source. This document, if available, can be obtained without
a FOIA request. The state summary document used for this study provided
both the actual and allowed emissions for each source and pollutant, and
included sources where emission inventories had not been completed (TNRCC,
1997). Where no emission inventory had been completed and only the
allowed emissions were reported, these allowed emissions were used in the
development of the cumulative inventory. Also, the state summary only
provided the most current data available. For example, if one source
reported actual emissions for 1994, 1995, and 1996 and another for 1993
only, the summary report provided the 1996 emissions from the first source
combined with the 1993 emissions from the second source. While this data
may be inaccurate as to current emissions, it was the best information
available.
Operational Activities — Vehicles
One of the largest air emission source categories in the study area
is vehicle operations. Since vehicles are mobile sources, they are not
9-9
-------
Table 9.3: 1996 Emissions Summary in the Defined Spatial Boundaries
1 AFB Operation Sources |
1 Vehicles
1 T-37Trim
T-37LTO
T-37T&G
T-38/AT-38Trim
T-38/AT-38LTO
T-38MT-38T&G
emission Inventory
L^tTT'V? Pn£tn^c
Residential NG Use
Sub-Total (Ibs)
COflbsl
694625
8707
536585
1071909
28877
2269369
2429602
53614
54245
4288
7151821
VDCflbsl
73682
1106
53459
24338
4046
329192
131333
162044
4837
1179
785216
NOxflbs)
60142
179
18974
77796
625
43603
158250
66252
616
10076
436513
SOxflbs)
0
88
7397
25268
328
23483
69680
25571
74
64
151953
PMlOflbsl I
49146 I
32 1
1522 1
402 1
6 1
401 1
918 1
19135 I
Ml
•
1198 1
72848 1
AFB Constmetion Sources
Water System 1910 145 548 50 153
Electrical System 6112 464 1752 160 488
New Construction 1070 81 307 28 85
Pavements 76591 15057 21955 2005 6115
Roofing 0 3136 000
Sub-Total (Ibs) 85683 18883 24562 2243 6841
AFB Total (tons) 3619 402 231 77 40
City Operations Sources
fl Vehicles
I Commuter Aircraft
H emission SUIDIDSTV
R A-Sfmlrp Fnrinec
H I -rt^WTH* • rtW^nflB «/• IB
I Comm/ResNGUse
1 Sub-Total (Ibs)
16631138
15438
3000687
1737643
0
128750
21513656
1468533
18976
485947
154932
1613803
43750
3785941
1958044
2821
12650020
19742
0
492500
15123127
0
430
1482456
2365
0
3000
1488251
1910072
1017
418526
2820 1
0
58975
2391410
1 City Construction Sources
• P ttVcrmnis
1 Sub-Total (Ibs)
1 Gty Total (tons)
I Entire Study Area
1 Total (tons)
109061
109061
10811
14430
78644
78644
1932
2334
31262
31262
7577
7808
2855
2855
746
823
8708
8708
1200
1240
9-10
-------
included in stationary source emission inventories; therefore, separate
estimates were developed. Factors for calculating CO, voc, NO,, and PMIO
emissions are available in the Compilation of Air Pollution Emission
factors (AP-42), Volume II: Habile Sources (USEPA, 1985) and Supplement A
to Compilation of Air Pollution Emission Factors (AP-42): Volume II:
Mobile Sources (USEPA, 1991b). These emission factors are based on
vehicle type and number of vehicle miles traveled (VMT). To calculate the
emissions for the vehicle use in a given area for a specific time period,
the information requirements are: the VMT for the period of concern; the
type and age of vehicles used; and the fraction of the VMT that can be
attributed to each vehicle type. AP-42 provides emission factor
information for eight different vehicle types of various ages with
multiple adjustment factors for such considerations as: percent cold start
versus hot start; temperature and altitude variations; average speed; and
potential for improper fuel use. Additionally, the road surface itself
can be considered as a source for fugitive dust emissions resulting from
vehicle traffic. PM10 estimations can be developed for fugitive dust from
both paved and unpaved road surfaces based on data and methods provided in
AP-42.
For this example, VMT and number of vehicles for the entire county
(excluding the AFB) was obtained from the state Department of
Transportation. No information was available regarding vehicle type and
age. Population figures for the county and city from the growth trend
report were used to determine the number of vehicles in the city by ratio
to the city population. The national average and type tables and emission
sensitivity tables provided in AP-42 were used due to the lack of specific
vehicle fleet mix data.
If the VMT is not readily available for the study area, such as for
the AFB, it can be determined via an area traffic study. Traffic studies
can typically be obtained from the AFB or city traffic engineer or planner
for the relevant areas. In this example, a traffic study was identified
for use in developing a VMT estimate for the AFB. As discussed in Beaton
et al. (1982), traffic counts at each roadway section of concern can be
multiplied by the length of the roadway segment to determine the VMT for
that segment. Adding the VMT for each segment provides the VMT data for
the total area needed for the previously discussed calculations (USEPA,
1991a).
Operational Activities — Aircraft
Aircraft emissions are an important component of the emission
inventory when there is major air traffic such as for an AFB with an
active flight line or a city with a commercial airport. AP-42 provides
emission factors for several aircraft types, however, the military
listings are incomplete. Additional emission factor information for
military aircraft can be found in Calculation Methods for Criteria Air
Pollutant Emission Inventories by Jagielski and O'Brien (1994). One
important consideration when developing the estimates is that aircraft
engine maintenance and testing operations need to be included where
appropriate. For this example, the municipal airport is not a major hub
and little if any maintenance is performed. For those aircraft activities
Sly the landing-and-takeoff (LTO) cycles are included as mobile source
contributions.
The AFB, however, conducts routine testing and maintenance of the
aircraft operating from its flightline. Some of these ^tiviti..,^«uch a.
aerospace ground equipment (AGE) emissions and 3et engine test.cell
emissions, were included in the base emissions inventory, and, therefore,
separate calculations. An additional maintenance activity
9-11
-------
that is not accounted for in the base emission inventory is the conduction
of aircraft trim operations where the engine power output levels are
evaluated while the aircraft is held stationary. This activity differs
from jet engine test cell operations in that the engine is not removed
from the airframe. Aircraft maintenance personnel can be contacted to
obtain trim operation statistics.
The calculation of LTOs for military aircraft is conducted in the
same manner as for civilian aircraft with the appropriate emission factors
and operating times for each specific engine. Additionally, Air Force
training activities can include considerable emissions from touch-and-go
(T&G) activities. Information such as the type and number of aircraft
used at the AFB, the number of LTD and T&G operations conducted annually
by each aircraft type, and the percentage of training versus operational
sorties flown, was obtained from the base operations flight.
Construction Activities — Source Categories
Typically, a NEPA analysis deals with the emissions resulting from
new activities. These emissions are evaluated for both the construction
and operation stages of a project and, occasionally, for the demolition
stage. In a cumulative sense, construction, operation, and demolition
phase emissions should be included for all activities within the spatial
and temporal boundaries. The previously discussed operational emission
estimates provide the operational stage emissions for the activities
initiated prior to the study timeframe (e.g., the baseline emissions).
The categories of projects evaluated include: water systems, sanitary
sewer systems, storm drains, natural gas distribution systems, electrical
distribution systems, facility disposals, pavements construction and
repair, facility construction, roofing construction and repair, and
housing development.
Construction Activities — Pavements
Paving activities identified within the spatial and .temporal
boundaries included: asphalt or concrete pavement construction and repair,
and runway striping. Striping emission estimates can be made through a
simple estimation of the volume of paint used multiplied by the paint-
specific VOC emission factors provided in AP-42. Concrete construction
(entire existing roadway demolished and re-built) was estimated with the
per-acre emission factors for fugitive dust and combustion sources as
described for general construction activities. Concrete repair projects,
identified where the entire roadway was not to be demolished and re-built,
were estimated similar to the concrete construction projects except that
the assumption was made that only 25% of the roadway would be demolished
and rebuilt. The reasoning for this assumption was that if more than 25%
of a road segment (e.g., paved area between two intersections) had failed,
that segment would be identified for a complete re-build.
Asphalt paving projects were also segregated into repair and
complete re-construction. If a road segment was to be repaired, emission
estimates were based on the application of the asphalt overlay. For
complete re-builds, asphalt emissions were combined with combustion
emissions as described for concrete construction (AP-42 includes a section
~ Section 4.5 — on estimating emissions from asphalt paving operations).
The primary emissions from asphalt pavements are VOCs. Liquefied
asphalts are used in tack-and seal operation, roadbed priming for hot-mix
asphalt concrete application, and as the primary binder for small paving
operations. Large paving activities typically rely on hot-mix asphalt
9-12
-------
it
* w Fop.t*lB study, it was determined that hot-mix asphalt concrete
use ^hS"lU°? ^ *™ aPPlications- Fu"her, —ce the AFB anS the c
use the sane local area pavement contractor, the assumption was made that
Set*-- S .""'i "°Uld *1SO be used for citv Fleets. AP-42 emission
fanST* ,™T t1 IC !«r^8t"nating Ion9-«"n emissions from cutback
asphalt applications. AP-42 does not, however, provide emission factor
information regarding asphalt emulsion emissions. Emulsified
* n Wa"r ""Dining an emurer
Based on information in Markwordt and Bunyard (1977), the Ib/lb emission
factors presented in AP-42 for cutback asphalt were modified for ^spna™
r
emulsions
STEP 6 - DETERMTMTNC THE CHANGE IN MR QUALITY
Once the cumulative emissions had been estimated and summarized
within the pre-determined boundaries, the change to the background
conditions should be evaluated. There are two main options for the
"change in air quality- analysis: evaluation of emission levels, and
evaluation of ambient concentrations. Both options were used in this
example; however, individual preference and the availability of background
data could influence the choice.
Emission Levels
Given the emissions estimates from Step S, the most expedient
analysis approach is to evaluate the emission level changes anticipated
from the proposed activities in the study area. Parameters that can be
obtained from this level of analysis include comparisons of the AFB
emissions with and without the proposals and comparison of the total area
emissions with and without the proposed AFB activities. Figures 9.3 and
9.4 graphically present these comparisons for PM,0 over the 10 year
temporal boundaries for the study. PMIO was selected for presentation
since ambient monitoring station data was available allowing for direct
comparison of the emission level analysis to the ambient concentration
level analysis. Separate graphs were generated to display the emission
changes within the AFB boundaries and to display the effect of these
activities on the total study area. The focus of a NEPA analysis is on
federal activity effects, not private, local, or state activity effects.
The information is presented in this format to emphasize the federal
influence. If desired, the analysis focus can be easily shifted to
present the effects on the area from alternate viewpoints such as city or
state government influence.
Careful inspection of Figures 9.3 and 9.4 shows that the largest
effects occur in 1997 and 2001. However, it is important to interpret
this information in context with the availability of information for any
given year. In the later years of the study period, the emission effects
of the proposed activities appears to taper off. By 2005, the emissions
appear to return to almost the same level as was predicted in the absence
of the AFB projects' influence. Three points can be made with regard to
this observation. First, while AFB development activities will exert a
short term influence on the specific AFB and study area emissions, the
long term, operational phase influence of those activities is minimal.
Second, since the majority of the PM,0 emissions increments identified in
this example are caused by construction activity, not the operation of the
proposed facility, it would be appropriate to focus PM,0 mitigation efforts
on the construction processes. This does not mean that the construction
9-13
-------
1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005
•»—with Construction —>-wahout Construction |
Figure 9.3: AFB PM10 Emissions Comparisons
9-14
-------
12S5T
1235-
1230-
1225
1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005
YMT
- Ctty+Bn* w/Const
• City*Bas« w/o Const
Figure 9.4: AFB Project Effect on PM10 Emissions in the Study Area
9-15
-------
phase will be of primary importance for mitigation consideration in every
example. The value is in the ability of the assessment tool to identify
the appropriate focus. And third, it is unlikely that AFB development
activities will simply end by ~the year 2005. A more reasonable
explanation is that development proposals for the later years of this
study and beyond have not yet, even informally, been formulated. Were
this study to be re-evaluated at a later time, it is likely that
additional RFFAs would be available for inclusion that would elevate the
development activity construction emissions for the time period of 2002
through 2005 to those similar to the first four to five years of the study
period.
The graphical analysis such as shown in Figures 9.3 and 9.4 can be
used to present the cumulative effect of AFB development activity for
individual pollutants. While this is valuable, the analysis can be
enriched. A tabular presentation of the percentage increase in emission
level, relative to each pollutant and year, can provide additional insight
into effect significance and proper mitigation focus. Table 9.4 presents
the percent increase in the emission level of each pollutant, annually,
throughout the study timeframe within the AFB boundaries. Table 9.5
presents the same type of data for the AFB influence with respect to the
total study area emissions.
The graphical analysis revealed that 2001 was one of the years with
the most extreme effect for PM,0 emissions. Table 9.4 shows that, within
the year 2001, AFB CO emissions increase 5.09%, VOC emissions increase
4.34%, NO, emissions increase 24.65%, SO, emissions increase 6.14%, and PMIO
emissions 44.74%. This indicates that the primary areas of concern for
the AFB, with regard to its local air quality, would be to focus its
mitigation efforts en both NO, and PMIO emissions. However, when addressing
the AFB influence on total study area emissions, the focus of concern
shifts. Table 9.5 indicates that the 2001 AFB proposal emissions result
in a 2.04% increase in CO, a 0.99% increase in VOC, a 0.76% increase in
NO,, a 0.68% in SO,, and a 1.31% increase in PMIO emissions. From the total
study area viewpoint, the primary pollutant of concern is CO. This
demonstrates the importance of evaluating an activity's effect, not just
on its immediate surroundings, but also with respect to the total study
area setting.
Additionally, the evaluation of cumulative emissions can provide
insight into more complex atmospheric issues such as acid deposition and
photochemical oxidant formation. For example, several studies have
indicated that sulfur oxides and nitrogen oxides are the principal
precursors to acid deposition (Canter, 1997). Evaluation of the change in
emission levels of these two pollutants within the study area, therefore,
provides inferences as to the future potential for acid precipitation.
A qualitative relationship between the major chemical and
atmospheric variables active in photochemical oxidant formation, which
includes urban (tropospheric) ozone, can be expressed as (Cooper and
Alley, 1994):
f (ROG) (IfOx) (Light Intensity) (Temperacure)
(Wind Velocity) (Inversion Height)
where:
PPL * photochemical pollution level
ROG • concentration of reactive organic gases (to include VOCs)
NO, » concentration of oxides of nitrogen
9-16
-------
Table 9.4: AFB Proposal Effects on AFB Emissions
Year
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
CO
1.20
3.64
0.89
0.58
0.95
5.09
0.25
0.50
0.15
0.12
voc
2.40
3.02
1.28
1.64
1.47
4.34
0.21
0.38
0.15
0.14
Pollutants (%)*
NOx SOx
5.63
17.46
4.50
3.09
4.89
24.65
1.28
2.43
1.13
1.03
1.46
4.49
1.08
0.70
1.15
6.14
0.18
0.47
0.05
0.02
PM10
9.39
31.47
7.83
5.23
8.57
44.74
1.71
3.88
1.07
0.87
•All percentages are increases in the emission levels over the
1996 emission levels (the base year chosen for this analysis
without considering construction projects on the AFB)
9-17
-------
Table 9.5: AFB Proposal Effects on Total Study Area Emissions
Year
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
CO
0.40
1.35
0.34
0.23
0.38
2.04
0.10
0.20
0.06
0.05
voc
0.49
0.68
0.29
0.37
0.34
0.99
0.05
0.09
tJ.03
0.03
Pollutants (%)'
NOx SOx
0.16
0.54
0.14
0.10
0.15
0.76
0.04
0.07
0.03
0.03
0.15
0.50
0.12
0.08
0.13
0.68
0.02
0.05
0.01
0.00
PM10
0.29
0.95
0.23
0.16
0.25
1.31
0.05
0.11
0.03
0.02
I
•All percentages are increases in trie emission levels over the
1 996 emission levels (the base year chosen for this analysts 1
without considering construction projects on the AFB) fl
9-18
-------
It is readily apparent from this qualitative model that increases in NO,
and VOC emissions have strong potential to increase tropospheric ozone
concentrations. Further, evaluation of the VOC/NO, ratio assists in
focusing mitigation efforts (Wolff, 1993). When this ratio results in a
value less than ten (VOC/NO, < 10), the condition is called VOC limiting.
When the ratio is greater than twenty {VOC/NO, >20), the condition IB
called NO, limiting. The optimal mitigation strategy for prevention or
reduction of tropospheric ozone is to focus emission control efforts on
the pollutant termed as the limiting factor. For this example, the ratio
indicates that the study area condition is VOC limiting for all years
addressed at both AFB and study area scales.
Ambient Concentrations
While an evaluation of changes in emission levels yields useful
information, it does not provide the assessor with an estimate of when, or
if, ambient air quality standards (AAQS) will be exceeded. In order to
determine the change to the ambient concentration resulting from proposed
activities, it is necessary to have observations or estimations of
existing ambient concentrations. Ambient air quality monitoring data was
collected for the study area in conjunction with Step 4; however, data
were available only for PM10. Since only one PMIO monitoring station was
located within the study area, the average annual concentrations reported
for this location were used as the average ambient concentration for the
entire study area. It is not surprising, or uncommon, to find that
ambient air quality monitoring data is less than complete for an area
requiring NEPA analysis.
As proposed by Rumrill and Canter (1998a), cumulative air quality
effects can be quantified and analyzed with the assistance of simple
techniques such as rollback, simple area source, and box models. The
available data was compared to the input requirements of each model type,
and it was determined that the box model was the most appropriate for the
data collection for this example. No implication is intended as to the
suitability of the other two model types for cumulative assessments.
Other studies may find one of the others to be more suitable.
Multiple equations are available for box modeling. For example,
Gifford and Hanna demonstrated the utility of box model application to
long term urban air quality analysis as follows (Benarie, 1980):
X.C-^r
where:
X
Q
A
u
c
the ambient concentration (M9/n>J)
the total area emissions (pg/sec)
the area (in3)
the annual average wind speed (m/sec), and
a correction factor applied in a model calibration exercise
The correction factor is needed to account for inherent assumption errors.
Box models assume that the pollutant emissions are uniformly mixed in the
entire volume of air. While some mixing will occur, factors such as the
location of emission sources (ground level) cause the actual pollutant
distribution to be non-uniform with the highest concentrations near the
emission sources.
The desired comparison in ambient -air quality modeling is to relate
the predicted concentrations to the observed values from monitoring
9-19
-------
station*. Monitoring stations are typically located so that the average
pollutant concentration respirated by the human population can be
determined. In other words, monitoring stations tend to be located near
ground level emission sources. Placement heights required by the USEPA
for CO, Oj, NO], SO], and PMm monitoring stations range from 2 to 15 meters
above ground level (USEPA, 1991a).
Gifford and Hanna demonstrated their application of the box model in
29 major urban areas for both SO, and part icu late matter to determine
annual average concentrations (Benarie, 1980). Using ambient air quality
monitoring data for calibration, they found that an average correction
factor of 50 should be applied for SO* and 202 for particulates. The
reason given for the difference in the correction factor between the two
pollutants was that the sulfur dioxide emissions accounted for in the
respective inventories included a large fraction associated with tall
•tacks (Benarie, 1980). Emissions from these tall stacks would disperse
differently than emissions from ground level sources and therefore, this
would reflect on the concentrations observed at the monitoring stations.
The correction factors obtained for each city varied for particulates from
a low of 57 to over 600. Similar variation was found in correction
factors for sulfur dioxide. These box model applications were all applied
to large urban centers. Finally, in a related study, Wu found that, for
small urban areas, an average particulate matter correction factor of 892
was more appropriate (Benarie, 1980).
This current study was performed on an urban area (population in the
range of 100,000) that can easily be categorized as small. Table 9.6
presents the 1996 annual average concentrations calculated for PHIO with
the influence of the proposed base activities using the same form of the
box model as Gifford and Hanna. Table 9.7 presents the calculations for
the determination of an appropriate correction factor for this study and
its application to future emission projections. The correction factor
determined here (807) compares well to the average for small urban sources
(892) developed by Wu (Benarie, 1980), assuming that the proportion of PM,0
in particulate matter remains relatively constant over the analysis. The
largest annual PH,e increase over the 10 year period is 0.24
The analysis of air quality effects resulting from federal
activities is often required in areas where ambient air quality monitoring
data is not available. In such cases, the average correction factors for
the appropriate urban center size, as determined by Gifford and Hanna, and
later by Wu, could be applied. These values are, however, averages.
Application of an average value to a specific situation introduces the
additional error of the degree of difference between the application site
and average conditions. However, this approach can provide the assessor
with a sense of the "order of magnitude" of relative change on ambient air
quality resulting from the proposed activities. On the other hand, the
predicted values should not be accepted as truly representative of the
actual future concentrations. The average correction factors should only
be used to determine the trend (e.g., increasing, decreasing, stable) in
the ambient concentration resulting from the proposed activities.
Although not addressed in this example, this modeling procedure can
also be applied to the evaluation of long-range transport effects.
Downwind transport determinations should be made where there is some
considerable effect on ambient air quality, or where concern is expressed
over pollutant transport to a new location. To evaluate this effect, the
study area can be modified to include the downwind receptor location, and
the ambient concentrations can be recalculated using only the source
emission contributions from the original study area as shown in Figure
9.5. This will not provide the assessor with an accurate prediction of
the actual ambient concentration at the downwind area. It will, however,
9-20
-------
Table 9.6: Uncalibrated GiSbrd g|V^ Hanna Box Model
1996 Total PM,0 Emissions - 2,479,807 Ibs/yr (fiom Table 9.3)
I Local Annual Average "Wind Speed = 5.66 m/s (from local weather data)
[ City Plus AFB Area Dimension - x (windward)- 18,288 m
- y (crDsswmd) = 14,630 m
Using the
Au
2,479,807 Ibs/yr= 35,661,752 pg/s
» (35,661,752V(18^88 x 14,630 x 5.66) - 0.02355 jig/m3
I Using the
I c = 202 (based on study of 29 urban areas, many of which were larger than the urban area
IB tDlS GX2XQD16
X- (202)(0.02355)
9-21
-------
Table 9.7: Calibrated Box Model Results for PM,0
Using the equation:
Au
Solving the equation fore with the 1996 data (0.02355 ug/m3 finom Table 9.6):
c = 806.8 = 807
| Applying this equation with the correction factor to the projected PMto
throughout the study period yields the following results:
emissions'
Year
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
With Proposed AFB Activities
19.00
19.21
19.07
18.98
19.02
19.18
18.99
19.01
19.04
19.07
froicctcd AurfoicnT C oncffnt'^8^ on
Without Piuuosed AFB Activities
(jig/m3)
18.95
19.04
19.02
18.95
18.97
18.94
18.98
18.98
19.04
19.07
(ug/m3)
0.05
0.17
0.05
0.03
0.05
0.01
0.03
0.00
0.00
9-22
-------
Wind
Emission Source Area (rotated 90° from Figure 1)
Lone-Ranee'
Wind
\
New Box Dimensions
Emission Source Area
\
Area of Concern for Long Range Effect
Figure 9.5: Long Range Pollutant Transport Analysis
9-23
-------
allow the determination of the study area's contribution to the overall
air quality in the downwind area. With ambient data obtained relative to
this new receptor, the percentage contribution resulting from the study
area activities can be determined?
f^V*
-------
Table 9.8:
Patimrc frtr rufffnlami* A"* Qoaiity Effects
Factor
Cumulative Intensity
HlghO? | Medemeff)
ifevri
3-9%
coon oBdmy tfanufb
period.>
.
10% or
3-9%
Anrinatt AirOiuiitV Stttdtflil
JO Bfllfltfftt. (
1-SSiB
* KfflSOL flSVOOBL flDD RIC QI COtttflC1
oacun e«rty in atdy
period, > 5 ycm dnntion.
IkMW Ht* Jlf JilfTB*^a
aoeun midwiy through
moy p0iod» 1*
oecun ine m muty
period.
-------
Table 9.9 : Factor Intensity Ratings fbrAFBLevdPMio
Factor
Analysis Data
Cumulative Intensity
(44.74* Kgbat noted m Tibto 4)
Rfnre 3 tiwm 2 pe«ks of
theaudy,adilttafbri
•fl oanpiiiace itnatt tnct
Kimnul
blf ofttidy p^od (M T«bU 7)
• viointoo of
-tevd of public
BIUJH t OCOIJBPlliy PtOBIflP 1
•uUlewdefc
N/A
lODC
Dottpracunor
not* i
TLV-T
9-26
-------
Table 9.10: Significance Rating for AFB Level PM)0
HtihlmpotUnM-3
- 1
w*- 1
CMMlMlw UM bteMMj (k)
Largt Advent - 9
ModeraUAitvcrM-a
Snail AdvtiM " I
No Advtm Efled or Bmiflcbl Eflhd - 0
Wti|U«4 Effect (Mb)
llmlni duration. Hid rate of chanf*
canv*ri*Qn to minim Hnrilillam (H
Ambkrt Ah Oui
dxtm In MuUcul concentration
| timing, duration, nd nto of chuit«
Influent* on amBtvttclMUk*lk«
ICVd 01 pUMlO CQCIMftt
I S*CBi*toivflndh«d/8ynff|hHg Efffftll
MHCIIM en fPL potcrtUI
I WluewtonVOONO,i»Uo
ion rintoipfKiio OZOM
ionglobftl%nnBiii|
H tfff M fi^*""^
Uvdo(c
Iml of
3
1
0
I
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
I
t
6
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
2
0
0
1
ToUl-39
Note: The factor weightings are considered to be generic and are explained elsewhere (Rumrill
and Canter, 1998c). The intensity ratings are from Table 9.9.
-------
Table 9.11: Weighted Effects Comparisons for Air Quality Cumulative Effects
=====
Pollutant
CO
voc
NO,
SO,
PM,0
Note Possible range of values -0-
36
73
*Basis is shown in Tabl
are available elsewhere
===================
AFB
19
21
29
21
29-
1C /!««••* MflmfifvftMK «r i miti viiifimi
• 108 (high lord of significance)
e 9.10; bases for other
(Rumrill, 1998).
Total Study Area
15
19
19
17
19
0
weighted effects
_ ___•- .— ^— ^— — ^— ^
9-28
-------
emission control. However, since it was determined that there would be no
significant effect on air quality resulting from these development
activities, it may be prudent to focus additional mitigation resources on
environmental resources other than air quality.
SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS
This case study has presented an application of proposed methods
(Table 9.1 and Figure 9.2) to a real world example. The intent was to
validate the previously proposed methods as well as to demonstrate the
practicalities of air quality CEA. This study presents the details and
assumptions of each step of the analysis. Presentation in this format
demonstrates the value of the assessment methods in context with therr
limitations in real world application.
Once this type of study has been conducted for a specified region,
it can be incorporated into the formal development planning documents of
both the city and the federal installation. Current practice in
development planning recommends a section discussing the environmental
resources of the planned area. Regarding this case study, the Air Force
has included such discussions in its comprehensive development planning
documents as have city planning agencies. The addition of a CEA component
into these documents seems logical and desirable.
Once the CEA study is formalized, either as a section of a
comprehensive plan or as a separate document, it can be referenced in
project-specific environmental impact studies conducted on the included
activities. These project-specific studies may lead to environmental
assessments (EAs) or environmental impact statements (EISs). If new
project proposals are planned, the CEA can be easily updated to
incorporate the relevant effects. When conducting the individual project
assessments, the requirements for CEA can be adequately addressed by
discussing only the relevant quantitative and qualitative results, their
influence on significance determinations, and the additional mitigation
opportunities as determined here. The net result would be a more complete
NEPA document (either an EA or EIS) for the project proposal without a
noticeable increase in volume.
The CAQEA study should be reviewed and updated on a time schedule
appropriate to the development planning pace of the assessed area. Open
communication between the federal agency planning office and the city
planning office can facilitate the time schedule necessary to ensure
updates are performed adequately.
In summary, this study has provided a practical example of the
application of a step-wise approach for cumulative air quality effects.
To that end, the following observations and conclusions can be drawn:
(1) This analysis represents only one component of an overall CEA
addressing all media. It is intended to be maintained as an
independent document or possibly an appendix to a community
development plan. It will require periodic update* as
conditions change or new information is obtained, possibly on
an annual or biennial basis. And, it is envisioned that the
results of this study would be incorporated by reference into
each relevant EA or EIS conducted at the AFB.
(2) Assessors should not restrict themselves to following the
exact order of the method steps. The step sequences are
intended to guide the assessor's thought processes, not
9-29
-------
dictate the chronology of step applications. It can be useful
to revisit steps as new information becomes available.
(3) Quantitative analysis results can shift the focus with respect
to the pollutant of concern when the spatial or temporal
context is varied.
(4) Caution should be used when applying average, or surrogate,
correction factors when calibrating dispersion models. This
approach can introduce an additional potential for error that
may limit the value of the resultant predictions.
(5) Projections of activity proposals and their effects become
increasingly more uncertain as the future time boundary is
extended. Firm commitments to development activities far into
the future is rare, and to estimate emissions from uncertain
future proposals can lead to inaccuracies in future emission
levels or ambient air quality concentrations. However,
failure to include these more speculative possibilities can
lead to the erroneous conclusion that emission levels will
decline in the future. Regardless of the approach taken, the
assessor should be aware of the probability that far reaching
future plans will likely be modified as the timeframe draws
closer.
(6) Public participation can be directly incorporated into this
analysis process during the application of the factor weights
and effects intensity ratings. By default, public involvement
is also incorporated in this analysis through its inclusion in
the preparation process of any community planning documents
utilized, and during the individual project EIA process for
each activity that incorporates this analysis.
SELECTED REFERENCES
Beaton, W.P., Weyland, J.H., and Neuman, N.C., Energy Forecasting for
Planners; Transportation Models. Rutgers, The State University of New
Jersey, Piscataway, N.J., 1982.
Benarie, M.M., Urban Air Pollution Modeling. The MIT Press, Cambridge, MA,
1980.
Canter, L.W., "Macro Air Pollution Effects," Sec. 5.5 (in Ch. 5) in
Environmental Engineers' Handbook. Liu, D.H., and Liptak, B.C., Editors,
Second Edition, Lewis Publishers/CRC Press, Boca Raton, Florida, 1997.
Cooper, C.D., and Alley, F.C., Air Pollution Control; A Design Approach.
Second Edition, Waveland Press, Inc., Prospect Heights, IL, 1994.
Council on Environmental Quality, "Regulations for Implementing the
Procedural Provisions of the National Environmental Policy Act," 40 CFR
Part 1502 and Part 1508, 1 July 1996.
Dixon, J., and Montz, B.E., "From Concept to Practice: Implementing
Cumulative Impact Assessment in New Zealand," Environmental Management.
19(3):445-456, 1995.
Jagielski, K.O., and O'Brien, R.J., "Calculation Methods for Criteria Air
Pollutant Emission Inventories," Armstrong Laboratory, Occupational and
Environmental Health Directorate, Bioenvironmental Engineering Division,
Brooks Air Force Base, TX, July 1994.
9-30
-------
Markwordt, D.W., and Bunyard, F., "Control of Volatile Organic Compounds
from Use of Cutback Asphalt*," United States Environmental Protection
Agency, Office of Air and Waste Management, Office of Air Quality Planning
and Standards, Research Triangle Park, NC, December 1977.
Pulver, H.E., Construction Estimates and Costs. Fourth Edition, McGraw-
Hill Book Company, New York, 1969.
Rumrill, J.H., "Air Quality Cumulative Effects Assessment for U.S. Air
Force Bases," Ph.D. Dissertation, University of Oklahoma, Norman, OK,
1998.
Rumrill, J.N., and Canter, L.W., "Addressing Future Actions in Cumulative
Effects Assessment," Project Appraisal. 12(4):1-12, 1997.
Rumrill, J.N., and Canter, L.W., "Air Quality Cumulative Effects
Assessment — Selection of Quantification Models," accepted for
publication in ElA Review. 1998a.
Rumrill, J.N., and Canter, L.H., "Air Quality Effects in NEPA Documents -
Project Specific and Cumulative Considerations," accepted for publication
in Journal of Environmental Planning and Management. 1998b.
Rumrill, J.N., and Canter, L.W., "A Significance Determination Method for
Cumulative Air Quality Effects," submitted for publication in EIA Review.
1998e.
Texas Natural Resource Conservation Commission (TNRCC), Lotus File
"STATESUM.EXE," Online, Internet, accessed August, 1997. Available at
ftp.tnrcc. state, tx.us/pub/airqualityplanningassessment/emissionsinventory
/tools.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA), "Ambient Air Quality
Surveillance," 40 CFR 58, Appendix E, 1 July 1991.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA), "Compilation of Air
Pollution Emission Factors,"Volume I, Stationary, Point, and Area Sources,
Report AP-42," Fifth Edition, Office of Air Quality Planning and
Standards, Research Triangle Park, NC, January 1995.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA), "Compilation of Air
Pollution Emission Factors, Volume II, Mobile Sources, Report AP-42,"
Fourth Edition, Office of Air and Radiation, office of Mobile Sources,
Test and Evaluation Branch, Ann Arbor, MI, September 1985.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA), "Supplement A to Compilation
of Air Pollution Emission Factors, Volume II, Mobile Sources, Report AP-
42, • Office of Air and Radiation, Office of Mobile Sources, Test and
Evaluation Branch, Ann Arbor, MI, January 1991.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA), "Supplement B to Compilation
of Air Pollution Emission Factors, Volume I, Stationary, Point, and Area
Sources, Report AP-42," Emission Factor and Inventory Group, Research
Triangle Park, NC, November 1996.
Wolff, G.T., "On a NOm-focused Control Strategy to Reduce O,," Journal pf
the Air and Waste Management Association. 43(12):1593-1596, 1993.
9-31
-------
CHAPTER 10
EFFLUENT TRADING PROGRAMS — AVAILABLE INFORMATION
AND EXPANDING MITIGATION OPTIONS FOR
SURFACE WATER QUALITY IMPACTS'
Historical approaches to air and water pollutant emissions
reductions have focused on "command-and-control" involving technologies
designed for pollutant types, characteristics, and quantities. Air and
water quality laws and regulations have traditionally specified emission
and ambient standards and delineated control technologies. Emission (or
effluent) standards relate to air or water pollutants released to the
environment, while ambient standards focus on air and water quality.
Pollutant emission sources are subject to compliance with emission
standards; and further, their emissions should not cause violations of
ambient standards. However, when emissions are too close together
spatially and/or temporally, nonattainment problems can be created
regarding ambient standards even though all contributing sources ace in
compliance with their respective emission standards. Accordingly,
pollutant emission reductions which are greater than those required for
emission standards compliance may be necessary. In these situations
relative to surface water quality management, an alternative market-based
approach involving "effluent trading programs" (ETPs) may be more cost-
effective than command-and-control (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
1996; Hester, et al., 1997; and Jarvie and Solomon, 1998). These types of
situations can result from the undesirable cumulative effects of
development projects in defined watersheds.
A key component of successful ETPs is the incorporation of
requirements for examining the water quality and aquatic ecosystem impacts
of proposed trades as well as the cumulative effects of the overall
trading program. This component is thus analogous to ETPs having an
environmental impact assessment (EIA) requirement. Accordingly, these
impact analysis requirements are similar to conducting a "focused" study
on the surface water impacts of development projects, irrespective of the
existence of an ETP. Both ETPs and surface water-related environmental
impact studies require information, prediction, and interpretation
(assessment) of the potential consequences of actions (trades or
development projects). Further, ETPs can expand the range of mitigation
options available for existing and proposed development projects with
surface water quality impacts.
The premise of this chapter is that mutual benefits can accrue to
development projects with EIA requirements which are located in
geographical areas with ETPs. Further, consideration of the cumulative
water quality effects of developments in an area without an ETP could lead
to the planning and implementation of such a program. These symbiotic
relationships are addressed herein via sections on the fundamentals or
*This chapter is largely based on the following paper: Canter, X..W.,
Edwards, A.J., and Szekely, F., "EIA and Emissions (Discharge) ^^9
Programs ~ An Opportunity for Integrating Development Planning and
Management," P^^edinaa «* the International Conference PH Impact
Ac.g0gq^nt- in th« Development Progeaa; Advances in Integrating
.SSStal A..»««^«t with Economic and Sorial Aporaisal. University Ot
r, Manchester, England, October.23-24, 1998, pp
10-1
-------
effluent trading, examples of ETP principles applied to the EIA. process
focused on surface water impacts, types of trades and their usage in the
EIA process, and potential benefits from integrating development planning
and cumulative effects assessments" (CEAs) at project or strategic levels
with ETPs.
FUNDAMENTALS OF EFFLUENT TRADING
To illustrate the concepts and technical needs associated with ETPs
in the United States, Figure 10.1 depicts a watershed with applicable
water quality standards (WQSs) for one to several pollutants, with the
standards having been previously established based on designated
beneficial uses of the water. The watershed has four point sources (PSs)
of effluent discharge, with two being publicly owned treatment works
(POTWs) and two being industrial wastewater treatment plants (Is). All
four PSs are subject to effluent standards and National Pollutant
Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit program requirements (NPDES is
the permit system used in the United States). Figure 10.1 also identifies
three areas designated as nonpoint sources (NPSs) of pollutant discharge,
including runoff from agricultural land (NPS.), forested land (NPSf), and
an urban area (NPS.) . In the United States, NPSs are not currently subject
to runoff water quality regulatory controls.
For purposes of this illustration, it can be assumed that the river
water quality in Figure 10.1 is not in compliance with one WQS. For
example, if the phosphorus concentration is 3 rag/1 and the standard is 1
mg/1, then the river water quality is not in compliance with the
applicable standard. A situation such as this could result from the
cumulative loading of phosphorus from PSs and NPSs. When this situation
exists, the Clean Water Act (CWA) in the United States requires that the
responsible state water management agency determine the total existing
pollutant loading, and the Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) that the river
can receive and still maintain the applicable WQS. The TMDL is sometimes
referred to as the pollutant loading cap; however, the loading cap can
also be set as a fraction of the TMDL in order to account for
uncertainties. The total pollutant ' loading for each pollutant (PL,) can
be calculated as follows:
PLt - LPS «• LNPS «• BG
where
PS, « contribution of the ith pollutant from each PS in the
watershed
NPS| * contribution of the ith pollutant from each NPS in the
watershed
BGj * contribution of the ith pollutant from natural
background sources in the watershed
Approaches for quantifying the TMDL (or loading cap) for the ith pollutant
include, but are not limited to, appropriate water quality modeling,
proportioning the PL, based on the ratio of the actual water quality to the
WQS,, or multiplying the range of expected river flows by the WQS, to
identify acceptable loadings for different flow conditions.
10-2
-------
PS - point mourcmt PS(I) • industrial point •ourca; and PS(POTW) -
publicly owned treatment work*
NPS. • nonpoint •oure* from forested land; HPS. - nonpoint aource from
agricultural land; and HPS. - nonpoint «ourc« from an urban araa
WQS« • water quality standards
Conceptual Aspects of an Effluent Trading Progr
Watershed
am in
10-3
-------
Once the THDL is determined for the pollutant, the pertinent water
management agency must then specify waste load allocations (WLAs) for each
PS; and load allocations (LAs) for each NPS and background contributions.
A "margin of safety" (MOS) load allocation could also be designated, based
on a policy decision, to account for uncertainty in the analysis, future
population growth and economic development in the watershed, and to
provide a "safety factor." Expressed mathematically,
'i
TMDL* * EWLA,,, » 'LLA
rat
The WLAs and the LAs can be assigned based on water quality modeling
results, proportioning of existing loadings, or the specification of
effluent concentrations or required percentage removals for each source.
It is typically assumed that no reductions are possible for natural
background sources of the ith pollutant.
As a result of the above process, each PS may then be required to
reduce their discharge of the ith pollutant to below the technology-based
effluent standard as contained in the NPDES permit. In the United States,
this is referred to as "a water quality-based effluent limitation"
(WQBEL). For example, suppose the technology-based effluent standard for
the ith pollutant for the POTW located in the upper watershed in Figure
10.1 is 5 mg/1, but the WLA and WQBEL requires a concentration of 2 mg/1.
Further, NPSs may have specific LAs that are less than their current
nonregulated discharges of the ith 'pollutant. For example, assume that
the .current loading of the ith pollutant from NPS. is 10,000 Ib/day;
however, the TMDL and LA process has resulted in an assignment of 5,000
Ib/day. Thus, the issue becomes focused on how each affected PS and NPS
can comply with these requirements in a cost-effective manner. This is
where an ETP might help.
To illustrate, if an ETP is established for the watershed in Figure
10.1, the upper watershed POTW could: (1) implement a higher level of
treatment at more cost; (2) purchase existing pollution reduction credits
(PRCs) from the lower watershed POTW, one or both of the industrial PSs,
or NFS, or NPSU, if any of these sources have allocations which are greater
than their current discharges; (3) "trade" some PRCs for the jth pollutant
which exists in the effluent of the upper watershed POTW for PRCs for the
ith pollutant from the lower watershed POTW, the two industrial PSs, or
NPSf or NPS. (if such PRCs for the jth pollutant exist due to the
allocation process and are needed by the other sources); (4) pay for
additional treatment for the ith pollutant at any other PS or NPS in the
watershed (if this treatment is less expensive; that is, if the marginal
treatment costs are less than the marginal costs for additional treatment
at the upper watershed POTW); (5) adopt pollution prevention measures in
its service area; and/or (6) implement other measures such as appropriate
water conservation. The upper watershed POTW could also consider
combinations of these options in order to meet its WLA for the ith
pollutant. Accordingly, it can be stated that the mitigation options have
been expanded.
Regarding the options available for NPS., the state water management
agency, perhaps in conjunction with the state agricultural agency, could
encourage the adoption of best management practices (BMPs) to reduce the
discharge of the ith pollutant from the agricultural area. Further, PRCs
could be purchased from NPS, or NPSU, or, if economically justifiable, new
or additional BMPs could be instituted at NPS, or NPS.. As a specific
example, restoration or creation of wetlands which-could retain (reduce)
10-4
-------
the ith pollutant might also be considered. These examples also
illustrate an expanded range of mitigation options.
EXAMPLES OF ETP PRINCIPLES APPLIED TO SURFACE WATER IMPACT STUDIES
A central issue basic to the success of an ETP is the existence of
differences in the marginal costs of controls (the additional cost of
controlling/removing an additional unit of the target pollutant) between
affected sources. Accordingly, sources with high marginal costs in a
trading area compensate those by "trades" with lower marginal cost sources
to achieve more'cost-effective solutions for pollutant loading reductions.
Carefully planned trades should also address the present worth of
equipment/ construction, and operation and maintenance costs and the
pollutant removal effectiveness of control strategies for involved
sources. Further* because cost-effectiveness information is fundamental
to the choices faced by the upper watershed POTW and NFS., and because
market-based approaches to environmental management expand the available
choices, it can be asserted that the fundamental objective of an ETP is to
facilitate the cost-effective achievement of WQSs and related goals in a
defined geographical area. However, ETPs should not provide loopholes or
mechanisms for avoiding the technology-based requirements of the CHA.
Accordingly, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency has identified eight
principles that ETPs must strive for in order to remain in compliance with
the CWA and other laws and regulations, to demonstrate responsible
environmental management, and to involve pertinent stakeholders in the
process. These principles and their implications for ETPs are summarized
in Table 10.1 (after U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 1996).
Table 10.2 contains examples of how each of the 8 ETP principles are
related to development project impact studies with an emphasis on changes
in the surface water environment. Each of the listed principles have
either direct or indirect applicability to the EIA process. The examples
in Table 10.2 include identifying the characteristics of PS and NFS
discharges, aggregating information on institutional requirements,
describing the baseline water quality conditions, predicting and assessing
the potential consequences, and using follow-up monitoring of discharges
and receiving water quality. Public participation within the EIA process
is also identified.
Careful examination of Table 10.2 reveals that there are no inherent
incompatibilities between the principles of ETPs and their application to
the EIA process. In fact, a symbiotic relationship exists between these
two environmental management practices. Further, the existence or
creation of an ETP can facilitate the incorporation of CEAs within
project-level impact studies and strategic environmental assessments
(SEAS).
TYPKS OF TttAPES AMD USAGE IN THE ETA PROCESS
Based on the choices as delineated for the fcyP°tnetic»i •*•*£!
described above, as well as a survey of existing and planned ETPs, five
types^f trades have been identified. Table 10.3 summarizes definitions,
several analyses, and related comments on each type. Careful review of
Table 10.3 indicates that different affected sources may be mor.
Interested in certain types of trades. TheAffected sourcea^a"" inclF£
existino or planned projects with wastewater or runoff discharges. For
SampS? IvS(I) could conceivably explore the first four types, •*"• •
PSfPOTwi could analyze pretreatment, point-point source, and point-
nonp^i source "adLg. PAn affected *PS could consider the latter two
types of trades.
10-5
-------
Table 10.1: Fundamental Principles for Planning and Operating Effluent
Trading Programs (after U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
1996)
Principle
Implications for ETPs
Trading participants total meet' applicable
CWA technology-based requirements.
Preserves minimum levels of water quality protection mandated by the CWA.
Promotes fairness by allowing only those sources which meet fundamental
requirements to benefit from trading.
Trades should be fonsistfni with water
quality standards throughout a watershed, as
well as the antibackslidinf policy. and other
requirements of the CWA. other federal
laws, state laws, and local ordinances.
Ensures a certain level of water quality prior to implementation of a trading
program*
Promotes fsirness by allowing only those sources which meet fundamental
requirements to benefit from trading.
Trades are developed within a TMDL
process or other equivalent analytical and
management framework*
Allocates pollution control responsibilities among affected dischargers using a
process thst can be essily utilized to document trades.
Data and analyses typically enable water quality managers to better understand
and predict general effects of proposed trades.
Trades should occur in the context of
current regulatory and enforcement
Trading partners must work with federal, state, tribal, and/or local regulatory
authorities on a case-by-case basis to ensure sn appropriate level of
accountability and enfbrceability.
Trading I
Ida
«lly coincide with
• watershed or water body segment
boundaries, and trading areas are of a
manageable size.
Ensures thst trading partners are affecting the same water body or stream/river
segment, thus protecting against adverse local effects.
Boundaries may vary for different pollutants.
Boundaries may also be affected by the governing body or management
structure of the trading program.
Trading will generally add to existing
ambient monitoring.
Assessing the water quality impacts of trades may involve water quality analysis
and modeling. The data needed depend on the sophistication of the analysis, the
pollutants) involved, and the hydrodyntmic and quality characteristics of the
receiving water. In general, data on current water quality conditions, predicted
effectiveness of pollution reduction options, and assessment of trading results
are required.
Careful consideration should be given to the
types of pollutants traded.
Analysis of trades, including the potential impacts of spatial or temporal
variations in loadings, is necessary to avoid local violations in water quality
standards.
Careful consideration should be given as to whether cross-pollutant
(interpoUutant) trading could work under current regulatory conditions and
technical limitations.
Stakeholder involvement and public
participation must be key components of
trading.
Educates stakeholder groups and the general public about the cost savings and
environmental benefits of effluent trading.
Educates ETP managers about the concerns of the general public.
Builds new alliances within and ben
akeholder groups and the general
public, thus fostering better management approaches and more effective
environmental protection.
10-6
-------
Table 10.2: Relationships Between Fundamental Principles of ETPs and the
EIA Process Focused on Surface Water Impacts
ETP Principle
Examples of ReUied Considerations in ihe EIA Process
Trading participants must meet applicable
CWA technology-based requirements
Wastewater discharges from proposed development projects (PSs) must
meet applicable CWA technology-based requirements; and the use of
BMP* are encouraged for storm water runoff control from industrial
activities and urban areas, and for other NPSs.
Trades should be consistent with water quality
standards throughout a watershed, as well as
the antibacksliding policy, and other
requirements of the CWA, other federal laws.
state laws, and local ordinances
Proposed development projects involving PSs and/or NPSs should also
be in compliance and consistent with water quality standards in the
watershed, as well as the antibacksliding policy, and other requirements
of the CWA. other federal laws, state laws, and local ordinances. These
compliance and consistency considerations can be used to determine the
significance of predicted cumulative water quality impacts from
proposed projects.
Trades are developed within a TMDL process
or other equivalent analytical and management
framework
The contribution of proposed development projects to the existing
pollutant loading in the stream segment (or watershed) within the study
area should be analyzed. Such analyses may also include mathematical
modeling of cumulative water quality and aquatic ecosystem effects.
Trades should occur in the context of current
regulatory and enforcement mechanisms
Proposed development projects are required to comply with appropriate
statutory and regulatory requirements. Commitments to mitigation
measures should be fulfilled. Enforcement activities can occur via the
National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit
program.
Trading boundaries generally coincide with a
watershed or water body segment boundaries,
and trading areas are of a manageable size
Spatial boundaries for impact studies need to be clearly defined. The
scoping process can be used to facilitate the delineation of such
boundaries. For surface water-related impacts, water body segments are
often used; further, entire watersheds could be used depending on Ihe
type of proposed action. These types of considerations are also
associated with CEAs focused on surface water quality.
Trading will generally add to existing ambient
monitoring
Discharge monitoring may be required for proposed projects via the
NPDES permit program. Follow-on monitoring of the resultant quality
of the receiving body of water may be used in the case of large scale
projects to facilitate effective environmental management. Monitoring
of cumulative surface water quality effects can provide valuable
information for future development planning.
Careful consideration should be given to Ihe
types of pollutants traded
Prediction and assessment of Ihe water quality and aquatic ecosystem
effects of proposed development projects is • fundamental component of
the EIA process; such efforts should be focused on the types of
pollutants associated with the proposed projects. Prediction and
assessment should be accomplished within the context of considering the
water quality impacts of past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future
actions in conjunction with a specific proposed development project.
Stakeholde
:nt and public
participation must be key components of
trading
Public participation within the EIA process can occur via scoping, the
provision of opportunities within the project planning phase, and the
review of prepared environmental impact statements (EISs). The types
of publics should include various stakeholders associated with Ihe
proposed development project. Public participation is also important in
CEAs.
10-7
-------
Table 10.3: Types of Trades in ETPs
Type of Trade
Definition (after Podar, et al., 1996)
Intra-plant
trading
A PS(I) uses its WLA as the basis upon which to
allocate pollutant discharges among its outfalls
in a cost-effective manner, provided that the
combined permitted discharge with trading is not
greater than the combined permitted discharge
without trading.
Pretreatment
trading
An industrial plant that provides pretreatment
and then discharges to a POTW arranges, through
the local control authority, for additional
control by other local industrial plants beyond
their minimum pretreatment requirements, in lieu
of upgrading its own pretreatment for an
equivalent level of reduction. Pretreatment
trading could also be initiated by the local POTW
which has been assigned a WLA.
Point-point
source trading
A PS arranges for other PSs in a watershed to
undertake greater than required control, or
purchases available PRCs from such PSs, in lieu
of upgrading its own treatment beyond the minimum
technology-based requirements.
Point-nonpoint
source trading
A PS arranges for control of one or more NPSs in
a watershed in lieu of upgrading its own
treatment beyond the minimum technology-based
requirements. The KPS control arrangements could
be direct or via payment by the PS to a specific
control fund administered by a governmental
agency.
Nonpoint-nonpoint
source trading
A NPS arranges for more cost-effective control of
other NPSs in a watershed in lieu of installing
or upgrading its own control. The arrangements
could be direct or via payment to a specific
control fund administered by a governmental
agency.
10-8
-------
The following scenarios illustrate the potential application of the
types of trades in Table 10.3 within the EIA process for development
pro3ects or plans, policies, and programs (SEAs): °eveiopment
(1) an existing industrial plant is to undergo a major renovation
and expansion program, thus the use of intra-plant trading for
the plant's PS discharges and storm water runoff could be
explored within a project-level EIS; further, if the plant
uses pretreatment prior to discharge to a POTW, pretreatment
trading with other industrial dischargers could also be
explored within the EIS;
(2) the impact study for a proposed new industrial complex (e.g
a petroleum refinery) could incorporate intra-plant trading
for PS discharges to surface water, or pretreatment trading
for discharges to a POTW; *
(3) the impact study for a proposed POTW could include an analysis
of point-point source trading, or point-nonpoint source
trading, as alternatives to providing a higher level of
treatment at the wastewater plant (these analyses could be
included in the EIS);
(4) a proposed agricultural development plan could incorporate
within the EIA process an analysis of nonpoint-nonpoint source
trading as an alternative to less cost-effective BMPs; and
(5) a geographically-focused SEA should certainly refer to any
ETPs which are completely or partially within the study area,
and how they might influence or constrain development
planning; further, if no ETPs are in existence, the SEA could
serve to identify the need for one or more ETPs, and become a
vehicle for the planning and implementation of such trading
programs.
Regarding the current status of ETPs, a recent survey (June, 1998)
is summarized in Table 10.4 (Canter, et al., 1998). A total of 26
programs have been identified, with 21 in the United States, three in
Australia, and two in Canada (no programs have yet been identified in
Europe). Twelve programs are existing, 10 are in the proposed stage, and
four are undergoing a feasibility study. Nutrient trading is the basis
for 15 programs (10 involve phosphorus, four both phosphorus and nitrogen,
and one relates to nitrogen only). Three programs involve BOD trading,
two each are related to selenium or salt (saline water), and one
incorporates pollutants from the iron and steel industry. An additional
three programs have not yet specified the tradeable pollutants. Regarding
the types of trades. Table 10.4 indicates five singular types involving
point-point, three involving point-nonpoint, two with nonpoint-nonpoint,
and one each for pretreatment and intra-plant. Dual types of trades are
allowed in six programs (five are point-point and point-nonpoint, and one
is point-nonpoint and nonpoint-nonpoint). Eight of the listed programs
have not yet specified the types of trades.
If development projects with potential project-induced and
cumulative surface water impacts are under consideration within the
trading areas of any of the ETPs listed in Table 10.4, the associated
impact studies should obviously refer to the pertinent ETP. Table 10.5
summarizes six typical steps for addressing surface water impacts of
proposed development projects, and the related requirements for an
effluent trading study. Examination of_Table 10.5 again reveals multiple
symbiotic relationships between the EIA process, including CEA, and the
10-9
-------
Table 10.4t status of Effluent Trading Programs a> of June, 199B (after Canter, et al., 199B)
Program Title and Location
Bay of Quint*, Canada
Bear Creek Watershed, Colorado
Outfield Reservoir, Colorado
Chcmong Lake WMenhed, Canada
Cherry Creek Reservoir, Colorado
Chesapeake Bay, Maryland (Note 1)
Fox River, Wltconiin
Hunter River Salinity Trading Scheme, Australia
rVelreaimem Feasibility Study, Illinois
Iron and Steel Industry, Multiple States
Kalamazoo River DemoiMiraiion Project, Michigan
Uke Dillon, Colorado
Little Auaable Watershed, New York
Lon| Island Sound, Connecticut and New York
tower Boise River, Idaho
Minnesota River (Rahr Milling Company), Minnesota
Murray-Darling Basin, Australia
Neuae River, North Carolina
Program Status*
F
E
E
f
E
P
E
E
P
E
P
E
P
P
P
E
E
P
Tndeabk PolluUnt(t)
Phosphorus
Phosphorus
Phosphorus
Phosphorus
Phosphorus
Nutrients
BOD
Saline water
_£_ ___
Total suspended solids, oil and
grease, lead, and zinc
Phosphorus
Phosphorus
^"t '
Nitrogen
Phosphorus
CBOD
Salt
Nutrients
Types of Trades"
PS-PS
PS-NPS
PS- PS
PS-PS,
PS-NPS
PS-NPS
PS-PS.
PS-NPS
PS-PS,
PS-NPS
PS-PS
PS-PS
Pr
In
PS-NPS
PS-NPS,
N PS-NPS
f '
rf '
PSNPS
PSNPS
PS PS,
PS-NPS
-------
Table 10.4s (continued)
Program Till* and Location
Pilot Phosphorui Offset Program, New York
Puyallup River, Washington
Ref ional Reserved Open Spice Profrim, Virginia
Rock River, WiMoniln
San Francisco by, California
San Joaquin Valley, California
South Creek Bubble Licenie, Auilralia
Tir-Paml!co Baiin, North Carolina
Program Status*
E
P
P
F(T)
P
F
E
E
Tradesble Polluiant(i)
Photphoiui
BOD, ammonia
Photphomi
"• •• i /? v,-. '
..& V : » t .
Selenium
Selenium
Nulrienli
Nutrients
TypeiofTradei**
''} \r
ft f ^ ;f
' 0 , ' ""
f" *
NPS-NPS
Ife A<
PS-PS
NPS-NPS
PS-PS
PS-PS,
PS-NPS
' F * feasibility study; P - proposed effluent trading program; E = existing effluent trading program
** In » intra-planl lradin|; PS-PS = point source/point source trading; Pr = pr nonpoinl aource/nonpoint
-------
Table 10.S:
Relationships Between Typical Steps in a Surface Water-Focused
Impact Study and Requirements for an Effluent Trading Study
Slept in Impact Study*
Related Requirements for Effluent Trading Study
Step 1 — identification of the type* and quantities of water
pollutants to be introduced, water quantities to be
withdrawn, and other impact-causing factors related to the
development project
The types and quantities of tradeable water pollutants
discharged by potential trading partners need to be
determined. If water quantity trading is to be pursued.
information will be needed on water usage by potential
trading partners. The basis for the tradeable pollutants in
terms of their water quality impacts in the trading
program area should be included in the justification for
establishing a trading program.
Step 2 - description of the environmental setting in terms
of river, lake, or estuarine flow pattern; water quality
characteristics; existing or historical pollution problems;
pertinent meteorological factors (examples are
precipitation, evaporation, and temperature); relationships
to area ground water resources; existing point and
DOnpoint sources of pollution; and pollutant loadings and
existing water withdrawals
The environmental selling information noted in Step 2
should be • pan of documented justification for the
trading program; if such • program is to be implemented,
this information will be necessary to provide the technical
baseline. Extracts of this information could be used in
analyzing potential trades.
Step 3 — procurement of relevant laws, regulations, or
criteria related to water quality and/or water usage, and
any relevant compacts (agreements) between states,
countries, or other entities related to relevant transnational
waters
This information should already be a part of the basic
documentation for an effluent trading program; if such a
program is to be implemented, the statutory/regulatory
information will be necessary for establishing statutory
and institutional authority. Specific discharge (effluent)
standards and related requirements such as WLAs or LAs
for potential trading partners will be necessary for
evaluating different types of trades.
Step 4 — conduction of impact prediction activities,
including the use of mass balances in terms of water
quantity and/or pollutant-loading changes, mathematical
models for relevant pollutant types (conservative,
nooconservative, bacterial, nutrient, and thermal), aquatic
ecosystem models to account for floral and fauna! changes
and nuirient-poUutanl cycling, or qualitative predictions
baaed on case studies and professional judgment
Proposed trades should be analyzed in terms of their
effects on water quality. Tools which can be used include
mass balances, mathematical modeling of water quality
changes and aquatic ecosystem effects, and qualitative
inferences based on related case studies and professional
judgment. Water quality modeling of existing PSs and
NPSs in the trading area should have been accomplished
when the trading program was established.'
Step 5 —use of pi
at info
M from step 3. along
with professional judgment and public input, to assess the
significance of anticipated beneficial and detrimental
impacts
Relevant statutory and regulatory requirements for the
trading area should be used to evaluate the technical and
public acceptability of proposed trades. Further, specific
ETP rules related to trading ratios, monitoring and
recordkeeping, repotting, and other matters can be used
to evaluate proposed tradea.
Step6-ide
appropriate i
tigatioa
i for the advene impacts
The bask concept of an ETP is related lo mitigating
undesirable water quality impacts from existing or
proposed PSs and NPSs in the trading area. The analysis
of a proposed trade is focused on mitigating undesirable
existing water quality problems in the trading area. The
enforcement features of an ETP can be used to ensure that
identified mitigation measures are actually implemented.
•after Canter (1996); these steps can be used for the direct and indirect
effects of a proposed project, as well as for the cumulative effects of
the project when considered in conjunction with past, present, and
reasonably foreseeable future actions in a defined, .study area.
10-12
-------
technical requirements for an effluent trading study. Further,
information can be procured from an existing ETP irrespective of a trading
study and used in several ways within the EIA process for a development
project. For example, such information should be useful in: (1)
describing the affected environment; (2) summarizing pertinent WQSs,
regulations, and policies; (3) identifying water-related constraints to
development; (4) predicting the water quality and quantity-related impacts
of the project in relation to past, present, and reasonably foreseeable
future actions via use of the modeling approaches incorporated within the
TMDL process for the ETP; (5) assessing the significance of the predicted
direct, indirect, and cumulative impacts; and (6) determining the trading
opportunities which might be incorporated in impact mitigation measures
for the project.
Step 4 in Table 10.5 includes water quality modeling, with this
subject being a key technical component in the development of an ETP, as
well as in the prediction of direct, indirect, and cumulative water
quality impacts from development projects. Surface water quality and
quantity models range from one dimensional steady-state models to three
dimensional dynamic models which can be utilized for rivers, lakes, and
estuarine systems (Henderson-Sellers, 1991; James, 1993; and U.S. Army
Corps of Engineers, 1987). A recent book on surface water quality
modeling addresses both modeling fundamentals and the use of mathematical
models for simulating the transport and fate of pollutants in natural
waters (Chapra, 1998). Models are described for different water
environments (streams, estuaries, and lakes), water quality parameters
(BOD, dissolved oxygen, nitrogen, phosphorus, bacteria, temperature,
metals, and radionuclides), and water quality problems (sediment
contamination and eutrophication). Depending upon the water environment
and the specific needs basic to the ETP, and the characteristics of the
development project, one to several of these models might be applicable.
A specific water quality model developed by the U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency is called QUAL2E; this model can be used to examine the
potential water quality impacts of flow changes and multiple pollutant
releases in river systems. This sophisticated model accounts for
advective and dispersive transport, and external or internal sources or
sinks relative to specific pollutants. This model has been used in several
ETPs and numerous impact studies for development projects. Information for
downloading this model and other related water quality models can be
obtained from EPA's Center for Exposure Assessment Modeling at the
following Web site —http://www.epa.gov/CEAM/ceamhome.htm.
As noted above, water quality modeling is fundamental to the
determination of TMDLs and pollutant loading caps, and the assignment of
HLAs and LAs. Both procedural and modeling components for determining
TMDLs are described elsewhere
-------
BENEFITS FROM INTEGRATING DEVELOPMENT PLANNING WITH ETPs
In summary, when the EIA process is applied to development projects
or strategic-level planning in a- geographical area with an FTP, the
potential benefits include, but are not limited to, the following:
(1) Information requirements can be extensive for planning and
operating an FTP. Examples of such information include WQSs
for the receiving water, water policies such as
antidegradation and antibacksliding, a discharge permit
program for PSs and associated records, water quality
monitoring data for the receiving water and regulated PS
discharges, and types of land uses in the study area. This
information is necessary for developing pollutant loading
information, THDLs, loading caps, WLAs, and LAs. This
information would be useable, as appropriate, in both project-
level and strategic-level studies of direct, indirect, and
cumulative effects.
(2) The ETP can be an encouragement for PSs associated with
development projects to use "clean production technologies."
Further, such new PSs will be encouraged to develop and
implement pollution prevention and waste minimization
measures.
(3) The results from ETP-rsquired source and water quality
monitoring can be used to evaluate the effectiveness of
mitigation measures and trading relative to the development
project, and to gain greater understanding of water resources
and their quality management. Further, the ETP will expand
the mitigation options available to both existing and proposed
development projects. Finally, these results and "lessons
learned" can be transferred to future development proposals.
(4) Cost savings for development projects in terms of water-
related environmental management requirements. Further,
monetary benefits could be realized by existing PSs (or NPSs)
with available PRCs who participate in trading agreements with
proposed development projects. These changes should provide
an overall economic benefit to the study area.
(5) Development of pollutant loading information, TMDLs, loading
caps, WLAs, and LAs in an ETP typically requires the use of
several types of models. Further, the technical evaluation of
proposed trades included within the EIA process may also
include modeling of the anticipated water quality effects.
These needs may "force" the adaptation or development of
specific models for the trading area. Once the various models
are operational, they can be used to evaluate cumulative water
quality effects and management under different scenarios,
including strategic-level planning involving the effects of
population growth, economic development, and various
management scenarios.
(6) An ETP encompasses a more holistic perspective regarding water
quality management than does the traditional technology focus
of command-and-control; this perspective should lead to more
integrated and effective management strategies which can be
included in cumulative effects emphases at the project-level
as well as incorporated into strategic-level planning and
SEAs. Integrated approaches will facilitate "environmentally
sustainable development" practices in the trading area. In
10-14
-------
the longer time frame, this may prevent water quality in the
trading area from becoming a constraint to population growth
and economic development.
SUMMARY
Market-based permit programs (emissions or discharge/effluent
trading programs) are being utilized for air and water quality management
at geographical scales ranging from the airshed/watershed to in-country
regional, national, and even international dimensions. Such programs
potentially offer more cost-effective approaches for environmental
management than do traditional "command-and-control" approaches. Permit-
related informational requirements for the characteristics of water
pollutant discharges, the conditions of the receiving environment,
effluent (discharge) trading and analyses of the environmental
implications of the trades, are similar to such requirements in the
traditional EIA process for development proposals with potential surface
water impacts. In fact, mutual benefits can be realized by integrating
marketable permit considerations within the EIA process. This chapter,
which is based in part on a systematic review of ETPs in the United
States, Canada, and Australia, explores the key principles of such
programs in water quality management. Approaches for integrating these
principles and related practices into the EIA process are then presented.
Possible planning process and environmental benefits include the use of
information from an ETP in the EIA process for a development project,
possible cost savings for water quality management due to expanded
mitigation options, and facilitation of cumulative effects assessments and
"environmentally sustainable development" practices in the trading area.
SELECTED REFERENCES
Byron, £., Najmus, S., Oppenheimer, E., and Gill, R., "Development of a
Nonpoint Source Watershed Management Model for the Truckee River,
California/Nevada," Proceedings of the 1998 Watershed Management Specialty
Conferencet Moving from Theory to Implementation. May 3-6, 1998, Water
Environment Federation, Alexandria, Virginia, pp. 129-136.
Canter, L.W., Environmental Impact Assessment, second edition, McGraw-Hill
Publishing Company, Inc., New York, New York, 1996, p. 204.
Canter, L.W., Edwards, A.J., and Szekely, F., "Effluent Trading Programs -
- Principles, Practices, and Possibilities," Working Paper W67, 1998,
International Academy of the Environment, Geneva, Switzerland.
Chapra, S., Surface Water-Quality Modeling. McGraw-Hill Publishing
Company, Inc., New York, New York, 1998.
Fordiani, R., "Point-nonpoint Pollutant Trading Study," Proceedings of
Watershed '96 — A National Conference on Watershed Management. June 8-12,
1996, Water Environment Federation, Alexandria, Virginia, pp. 293-296.
Hall, J.C., and Howett, C.M., "The Tar-Pamlico Experience: Innovative
Approaches to Water Quality Management," Proceedings of Watershed '96 —
A National Conference on Watershed Management. June 8-12, 1996, Water
Environment Federation, Alexandria, Virginia, pp. 151-153.
Henderson-Sellers, B., water Quality Modeling — Vol. IV — Decision
Support Techniques for Lakes and Reservoirs. CRC Press, Boca Raton,
Florida, 1991.
10-15
-------
Hester, C.L., Goodrich-Mahoney, J.W., and Herd, R.S., "Watershed-based
Effluent Trading, The Environmental Professional. Vol. 19, 1997, pp. 153-
158.
James, A., editor. An Introduction to Water Quality Modeling. John Wiley
and Sons, Ltd., West Sussex, England, 1993.
Jarvie, M., and Solomon, B., "Point-nonpoint Effluent Trading in
Watersheds: A Review and Critique," Environmental Impact Assessment
Review. Vol. 18, 1998, pp. 135-157.
Podar, M.K., Kashmanian, R.M., Brady, D.J., Herzi, H.D., and Tuano, T.,
"Market Incentives: Effluent Trading in Watersheds," Proceedings of
Watershed '96 — A National Conference on Watershed Management. June 8-12,
1996, Water Environment Federation, Alexandria, Virginia, pp. 148-150.
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, "Water Quality Models Used by the Corps of
Engineers," Information Exchange Bulletin, Vol. E-87-1, March, 1987,
Waterways Experiment Station, Vicksburg, Mississippi.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, "Draft Framework for Watershed-based
Trading," EPA 800-R-96-001, 1996, Office of Water, Washington, D.C.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, "Guidance for Water Quality-based
Decisions: the TMDL Process," EPA 440/4-91-001, 1991, Office of Water,
Washington, D.C.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, "Technical Guidance Manual for
Performing Waste Load Allocations — Book II — Streams and Rivers —
Chapter 2 — Nutrient/Eutrophication Impacts," EPA-440/4-84-021, 1983b,
Washington, D.C.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, "Technical Guidance Manual for
Performing Waste Load Allocations — Book III — Estuaries — Part 2 —
Application of Estuarine Waste Load Allocation Models," 1990, Washington,
D.C.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, "Technical Guidance Manual for
Performing Waste Load Allocations — Book IV — Lakes and Impoundments —
Chapter 2 — Nutrient/Eutrophication Impacts," EPA-440/4-84-019, 1983a,
Washington, D.C.
10-16
-------
CHAPTER 11
MONITORING OF CUMULATIVE EFFECTS
The emphasis of this chapter is on the purposes (or uses) of
cumulative effects monitoring in the environmental impact assessment (EIA)
process, planning considerations for such monitoring programs, and brief
descriptions of four examples. ..The primary thesis of this chapter is that
a comprehensive. (or ^argetedj., monitoring program for., cumulative effects
should be required.of_ major^,projects,.,plans, or programs as a part of
their . life cycled — and fche,, resultant .information should be used in
environmentally responsible management and decision making.
Comprehensive environmental monitoring refers to the set of
activities which provide chemical, physical, geological, biological, and
other environmental, social, or health data required by environmental
managers (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 1985). A targeted
monitoring program could include elements related to environmental media
(air, surface and/or ground water, soil, and noise), biological features
(plants, animals, and habitats), visual resources, social impacts, and
human health subjected to cumulative effects. Pertinent elements should
be selected based on the project type, baseline environmental sensitivity,
and expected cumulative effects. Components within the broad definition of
environmental monitoring include: planning the collection of
environmental data to meet specific objectives and cumulative effects
information needs; designing monitoring systems and studies; selecting
sampling sites; collecting and handling samples; laboratory analyses;
reporting and storing the data; assuring the quality of the data; and
analyzing, interpreting, and making the data available for use in
decision-making (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 1985).
An integrating term being used in some countries to denote life-
cycle environmental management, including the consideration of cumulative
effects, is "post-project analysis" (PPA). PPAs refer to environmental
monitoring studies undertaken during the implementation phase (prior to
construction, during construction or operation and at the time of
abandonment) of a given activity after the decision to proceed has been
made (Economic Commission for Europe, 1990). Such studies can include
comprehensive or targeted monitoring related to cumulative effects,
evaluation of the collected data and information, environmentally focused
decision-making as appropriate, and implementation of the management
decisions. FPA could be viewed a continuous cycle over the life of a
project, plan, or program. An example of such a monitoring program has
been implemented to assess the cumulative effects of North Sea oil
development on the Shetland Islands north of Scotland (Nelson and Butler,
1993).
Examples of environmentally responsible project management decisions
which can be based on monitoring data, and which can be beneficial in
terms of minimizing adverse cumulative effects and enhancing environmental
management include: (1) reducing power production (and resultant
atmospheric emissions) at a coal fired power plant in an industrial area
with several stack emissions when atmospheric dispersion conditions are
limiting; (2) planning multiple training activities at a military
installation so as to not coincide with the use of certain training areas
for breeding or nesting by threatened or endangered animal species; (3)
planning and implementation of a metals removal system at an industrial
11-1
-------
wastewater treatment plant so as to minimize metals uptake in aquatic food
chains downstream of the wastewater discharge and other point and nonpoint
sources of such metals; and (4) changing surface water reservoir water
levels and water release patterns to optimize dissolved oxygen
concentrations in the water phase during various seasons, particularly
when the reservoir is subjected to multiple point and nonpoint sources of
organic pollution.
PURPOSES OF CUMULATIVE EFFECTS MONITORING
Numerous purposes (and implied benefits) can be delineated for pre-
and/or post-EIS (environmental impact statement) cumulative effects
monitoring. For example, Marcus (1979) identified the following six
purposes or use* of information from the conduction of post-EIS monitoring
(the wording of the purposes has been modified to focus on cumulative
effects):
(1) Provides information for documentation of the cumulative
effects that result from a proposed action when considered in
conjunction with other past, present, and future actions, with
this information enabling the more accurate prediction of
cumulative effects associated with similar actions.
(2) The monitoring system could warn agencies of unanticipated
adverse cumulative effects or sudden changes in effects
trends.
(3) The monitoring system could provide an immediate warning
whenever a pre-selected indicator of cumulative effects
approaches a pre-selected critical descriptive or numerical
level.
(4) Provides information which could be used by agencies to
control the timing, location, and level of the cumulative
effects resulting from a proposed project. Control measures
would require preliminary planning as well as the possible
implementation of regulation and enforcement measures by
several governmental agencies. If an intergovernmental
monitoring program is used it could facilitate appropriate
response measures by multiple agencies.
(5) Provides information which could be used for evaluating the
effectiveness of implemented mitigation measures for
identified cumulative effects.
(6) Provides information which could be used to verify predicted
cumulative effects and thus validate prediction techniques.
Based on these findings the techniques; e.g., mathematical
models, could be modified or adjusted as appropriate.
The Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) regulations in the United
States primarily require monitoring, including cumulative effects
monitoring, in conjunction with the implementation of mitigation measures.
Mitigation includes avoiding the cumulative effect altogether by not
taking a certain action or parts of an action; minimizing cumulative
effects by limiting the degree or magnitude of the action and its
implementation; rectifying the cumulative effect by repairing,
rehabilitating, or restoring the affected environment; reducing or
eliminating the cumulative effect over time _by preservation and
maintenance operations during the life of the action; and/or compensating
11-2
-------
for the cumulative effect by replacing or providing substitute resources
or environments (after Council on Environmental Quality, 1978).
Sadler and Davies (1988) describe three types of environmental
monitoring which might be associated with the life cycle of a project.
These include monitoring of existing conditions, effects or impact
monitoring, and compliance monitoring. Monitoring of existing conditions
is the measurement of environmental variables during a representative pre-
project period to determine existing characteristics, ranges of
variation, and processes of change. Effects or impact monitoring involves
the measurement of environmental variables during project construction and
operation to determine changes which may have been caused by the project.
Finally, compliance monitoring takes the form of periodic sampling and/or
continuous measurement of levels of waste discharge, noise, or similar
emission, to ensure that conditions are observed and standards are met.
Pre-EIS monitoring includes baseline monitoring, while post-EIS monitoring
encompasses effects or impact monitoring, and/or compliance monitoring.
While these three types of monitoring are not specific to cumulative
effects, it would be easy to focus them on this topic.
As suggested by Sadler and Davies (1988), monitoring can serve as a
basic component of a periodic environmental regulatory auditing program
for a project (Allison, 1988). In this context, auditing can be defined
as a systematic, documented, periodic and objective review by regulated
entities of facility operations and practices related to meeting
environmental requirements (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 1986).
Some purposes of environmental auditing are to verify compliance with
environmental requirements; evaluate the effectiveness of in-place,
environmental management systems; and/or assess risks from regulated and
unregulated substances and practices. Some direct results of an auditing
program include an increased environmental awareness by project employees,
early detection and correction of problems and thus avoidance of
environmental agency enforcement actions, and improved management control
of environmental programs (Allison, 1988). Cumulative effects monitoring
could be incorporated into a regulatory auditing program.
To serve as a final example, a multicountry task force on EIA
auditing conducted a comparative analysis of 11 case studies in order to
document environmental monitoring practices (Economic commission for
Europe, 1990). The reviewed monitoring programs were primarily related to
the direct and indirect effects of specific proposed actions. The
purposes for conducting such monitoring as delineated in the case studies
included (Economic Commission for Europe, 1990): to monitor compliance
with the agreed conditions set out in construction permits and operating
licenses; to review predicted environmental impacts for proper management
of risks and uncertainties; to modify the activity or develop mitigation
measures in case of unpredicted harmful effects on the environment; to
determine the accuracy of past impact predictions and the effectiveness of
mitigation measures in order to transfer this experience to future
activities of the same type; to review the effectiveness of environmental
management for the activity; and to use the monitoring results in order to
determine the compensation required to be paid to local citizens affected
by a project. Although these identified purposes were not unique to
cumulative effects, they could be easily modified to focus on such
effects.
In summary, the primary point to note from the above examples of
different monitoring purposes is that such purposes can be wide ranging;
therefore, monitoring purposes for cumulative effects need to be
incorporated in the planning and implementation of a monitoring effort for
a project/plan/or program.
11-3
-------
PLANNING FOR CUMULATIVE EFFECTS MONITORING
Detailed planning for a cumulative effects monitoring program can
include many considerations; examples of such considerations are related
to delineating monitoring objectives, selecting sampling locations and
parameters to be measured, utilizing appropriate analytical procedures,
storing and retrieving data, interpretation of the collected information,
preparation of written reports, and implementing certain follow-on
measures based on the monitoring results. To illustrate, Table 11.1
summarizes a list of eight such considerations (fundamental components or
planning elements) for planning and implementing a program (after Marcus,
1979). It should be noted that iterations within and between elements may
be necessary during both the planning and implementation of a program.
Over time, the eight elements in Table 11.1 have been sharpened in focus
via the identification of related or additional concepts such as: (1)
provision of feedback from the program to the EIA process; (2) adaptation
in the program; (3) use of testable hypotheses for effects predictions;
(4) clear delineations of temporal and spatial scales; (5) use of
consistent documentation; and (6) provision of public participation
opportunities.
CASE STUDIES RELATED TO CUMULATIVE EFFECTS MONITORING
This section briefly summarizes four examples of cumulative effects
monitoring as incorporated within the EIA process. The examples include
operation of the reservoir system on the Tennessee River and the Elk Creek
Lake in Oregon (USA), the Niagara Escarpment Plan area in southern Ontario
(Canada)/ and timber harvesting in Washington and Oregon (USA). A more
detailed review of the latter example is provided.
Reservoir System on the Tennessee River
A comprehensive illustration of environmental monitoring, including
cumulative effects monitoring, coupled with on-going decision-making, was
associated with the operation of the 16 extant reservoirs and dams in the
Tennessee River system (Tennessee Valley Authority, 1991). The monitoring
program included measurements of river flows, water quality (dissolved
oxygen and other constituents), and the effectiveness of aeration of water
releases from the dams. The purpose of this program was to determine the
influence of reservoir operational patterns on water quality (particularly
dissolved oxygen), and to improve water quality and aquatic habitat by
increasing minimum flow rates and aerating releases from the TVA
(Tennessee Valley Authority) dams to raise dissolved oxygen levels, and to
extend the recreation season on TVA lakes by delaying drawdown for other
reservoir operating purposes, primarily hydropower generation.
Elk Creek Lake in Oregon
The Elk Creek Lake project is a concrete dam and reservoir to be
located on Elk Creek, approximately 1.7 miles upstream from its confluence
with the Rogue River in Oregon. The project was authorized by the U.S.
Congress in 1962 as one of three dams in the Rogue Basin Project. Project
purposes include flood control, irrigation, water supply, and recreation
(U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, 1991). A targeted pre- and post-EIS
environmental monitoring program was described in the final EIS Supplement
No. 2 for the Elk Creek Lake project. A portion of this monitoring effort
was attributable to the decision of the Federal Ninth Circuit Court of
Appeals in the case of Oregon Natural Resources Council v. Marsh. The
Ninth Circuit ruled in this case that the EIS and EIS Supplement No. 1 for
11-4
-------
Table ll.lt Examples of Elements in a Cumulative Effects Monitoring Program (after Marcus, 1979)
Element
Ttiki Aitociiled with Elemem
(I) Identify and define major cumulative effects
• Identify cumulative effects for consideration for monitoring on the basia of their significance ai deacribed in the
EIS,
(2) Coordinate with governmental agencies already
conducting monitoring in the are*, or who would be
intcrciled in monitoring, or have responsibilities related
thereto.
• Contact all agencies having pertinent monitoring responsibilities in area to be affected.
• Identify agenciei' major areas of environmental concern. Determine for what atpecl* of the environment and for
what type of cumulative effects the agencies are responsible.
• Identify individual agency basia of authority to control cumulative effects through dccisionmaking, planning,
regulation, monitoring, and enforcement.
(3) Define monitoring objectives.
•Define monitoring objectives in terms of major potential cumulative effect* and in terms of agency authority.
•The objectives should be specified as to whether they relate to establishing baseline conditions, conducting
effects monitoring, or to implementing compliance monitoring relative to mitigation or environmental
requirements.
(4) Determine data requirements for achieving monitoring
objectives.
• Reevaluate cumulative effects identified for monitoring (element I) on the basia of monitoring objectives;
eliminate overlap in monitoring objeclivea and monitoring effort.
•Select cumulative effects indicators (theae are the parameter* that must be moniiored to assess the magnitudes of
effect*). Several parameter* may be indicative of a particular effect. Cumulative effects indicators should be
selected on the basis of their utility for deciaionmaking, planning, regulation, and enforcement.
• Determine frequency and timing of data collection. Frequency of data collection should he the minimum
necessary for trend analysis, enforcement of regutalions, and correlation of cause and effects. Timing of data
collection should relate to the liming of activities causing (he cumulative effect.
• Determine monitoring sites or collection areas. These should be based on the location of the activities causing
the cumulative effects, predictions of areas most likely to be affected, and locations where integrated
measurements would assist in gaining comprehensive understanding.
• Determine method of data collection. Data can be collected in several ways; for example, vegeliiive-coverdata
can be collected by field collection methods ot by remote-sensing techniques. Determine analytical rcquirememi,
as appropriate, for the collected samples.
• Determine data storage and retrieval requirements and necessary formats.
-------
Table 11.1 (continued)i
(5) Develop implementation plan, including budgetary
requirement! and individuali/groupi/or agencies reiponaible
for variou* elements.
•Determine budgetary, penomtel, and time requirement* for obtaining data.
•Determine whether proposed monitoring system is feasible within budgetary, personnel, and lime constraints. If
program has to be reduced, several potential approaches are available for reducing the monitoring system to a
feasible level: the scope of monitoring objectives can be reduced; alternative cumulative effects indicator! can be
selected; the frequency of data collection can be reduced; and alternative methods of dau collection can be used.
(6) Collect and analyze the monitoring data (and project
operational data; if appropriate) in view of the identified
monitoring objectives (element 3).
•Identify baseline condition or effects trends; identify rale of change. (The rale at which an cumulative effect is
increasing may be significant because of the need to respond to effects trends in a timely fashion before critical
effect levels are reached).
•Identify cumulative effects that have reached critical levels. (Critical effects levels requiring immediate
notification of participants should be set for each effect being monitored.) Identify effects that have exceeded
legal limits.
• Evalusle effectiveness of mitigating measures, a* appropriate.
(7) Implement project management activities, as appropriate,
to manage/mitigate undesirable cumulative effects.
•Plan responses to cumulative effects trends. Responses to unacceptable effects can be directed at the activity
causing the effect or at the effect itself.
•Respond to critical effect levels: slop or modify activities causing effect; treat effect.
•Respond to evaluations of mitigation measures by revising, terminating, or adding measures as appropriate.
(8) Prepare periodic monitoring reports.
• Prepare reports at regular lime intervals to document the monitoring program, key environmental trends, and
response actions.
-------
the Elk Creek Lake project did not fully comply with the requirements of
the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). Subsequent review of the
case by the U.S. Supreme Court reversed in part the decision of the Ninth
Circuit Court. As directed by the order of the U.S. District Court, EIS
Supplement No. 2 was prepared to comply with the opinions of the U.S.
Supreme Court, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, and the U.S. District
Court for the District of Oregon (U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, 1991).
Monitoring for several water quality, fisheries, and terrestrial habitat
parameters was conducted at two existing reservoirs and dams (Applegate
Dam and Lost Creek Dam) and at the proposed site for Elk Creek Dam in the
Rogue River Basin. More specifically, monitoring was conducted for water
temperature, turbidity, and suspended sediment; river flow rates; game
fish; and terrestrial habitats for eight evaluation species.
Water quality and terrestrial habitat modeling was used for
analyzing single project and cumulative effects related to the Elk Creek
Lake project. Water quality models used for evaluating temperature,
turbidity, and suspended sediment impacts included the Hater Resources
Engineers, Inc. model (WRE), two Corps of Engineers models (the WESTEX
model and the CE-THERM-R1 model), and a U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency model (QUAL II). Four physical parameters (land cover, soils,
slope, and stream network) were monitored in a remote sensing/CIS
(geographic information system) analysis of suspended sediment/turbidity.
Fisheries resources studies for salmon and steelhead populations assessed
changes in emergence timing of fry from river gravel; the abundance of
juvenile fish, their size, growth rate and migration timing; and the
abundance, migration timing, pre-spawning mortality, and spawning of adult
fish. Eight terrestrial species in the Rogue River Basin were studied
through usage of the Habitat Evaluation Procedures of the U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service (U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, 1991). Because of the
extensive cumulative effects modeling, one of the purposes of the
monitoring program was to validate extant water quality models, and also
to serve as a basis for future predictions of both single project and
cumulative effects on fisheries, water quality, and terrestrial wildlife
habitat.
Niagara Escarpment Plan Area in Southern Ontario
A monitoring program for the Niagara Escarpment Plan area in
southern Ontario in Canada has been proposed (Rennick, 1994). The area is
a designated United Nations Biosphere Reserve, and monitoring in this
context is defined as the repetitive measurement of indicators which will
enable a better understanding of spatial and temporal change* in
environmental quality. The following generic steps were utilized in
developing the Niagara monitoring program (Rennick, 1994):
(1) establish management goals;
(2) identify the ecological (natural, social, cultural) units for
the monitoring program;
(3) develop a monitoring framework;
(4) select indicators and parameters or targets to be measured;
(5) decide on sampling frequency, locations, etc.;
(6) select measures which can be used to determine the
significance of data collected (e.g., environmental standards
and guidelines); .
11-7
-------
(7) collect the data;
(8) manage and interpret the data; and
(9) report and use the information to assess and modify goals and
objectives, environmental management practices and the
monitoring system itself.
Timber Harvesting in Washington and Oregon
To explore the application of monitoring and related monitoring
planning elements in EIA practice. Canter and Harrington (1997) described
a systematic review of the monitoring programs included in 9 EZSs. The
monitoring program in one EIS was primarily related to the cumulative
effects of management of habitat for late-successional and old-growth
forest related species within the range of the endangered northern spotted
owl in western portions of Washington and Oregon, and the northwestern
portion of California. Examined within the EIS were proposed actions
consisting of combinations of: (1) land allocations managed to protect and
enhance habitat for late—successional and old-growth forest related
species and to protect and enhance aquatic resources; and (2) standards
and guidelines for the management of these land allocations (U.S. Bureau
of Land Management and U.S. Forest Service, 1994).
An original EIS related to timber harvesting in areas that also
provided habitat for the northern spotted owl was highly controversial.
The fundamental reason was the conflict between timber harvesting
interests and the need in the Pacific Northwest and Northern California
for maintaining forest habitat for the endangered northern spotted owl and
other species. Timber harvesting would not only supply consumer demand
for wood products, but also support the local economy in the region
through timbering contracts and timber sales. The importance of
fulfilling both development and conservation needs came to the forefront
in April, 1993, when President Clinton sponsored a Forest Conference in
Portland, Oregon. The Conference was attended by various concerned
organizations and citizen groups.
After the Conference, a Forest Ecosystem Management Assessment Team
(FEMAT) was assembled and charged with the responsibility of developing an
impact study that took an ecosystem approach to forestry management. The
results were organized into a Supplemental EIS by the U.S. Bureau of Land
Management and the U.S. Forest Service, along with the U.S. Department of
Agricultgre^J The described monitoring program focused on potential
"Impacts to aquatic ecosystems, air quality, water quality, soil
productivity, threatened and endangered species, nonvascular plants and
allies, vascular plants, invertebrates, vertebrates, timber harvest
yields, regional employment, rural communities, and American Indian
peoples and cultures (U.S. Bureau of Land Management and U.S. Forest
Service, 1994).
Although no specific laws were mentioned as being the impetus for
requiring the implementation of a monitoring program, several laws were
referred -to in the Supplemental EIS as having a potential role in
affecting the proposed action. The relevant laws or regulations that
played a part in the included monitoring program were NEPA, the CEQ
regulations, the Endangered Species Act, Clean Water Act, Clean Air Act,
and Forest Management Act.
The monitoring program section of the Supplemental EIS was presented
in great depth. The section began with a statement .that the rationale for
monitoring was to "detect changes in ecological systems from both
11-8
-------
individual and cumulative management actions and natural events and to
provide a basis for natural resource policy decisions" (U.S. Bureau of
Land Management and U.S. Forest Service, 1994). A discussion was then
provided as to what types of monitoring would be conducted.
Implementation, effectiveness, and validation monitoring were the types
explicitly mentioned. In addition, it was implied that baseline and
effects monitoring, including cumulative effects, were to be performed.
The monitoring program was also focused on both short-term and
long-term effects of the proposed actions. The program included specific
reference to monitoring potential cumulative effects on environmental
resources. Ecosystem monitoring as well as individual resource monitoring
was to be performed. The monitoring activities were not limited to
physical observations; they included complex quantifiable hypotheses
testing. In fact, specific reference to formulating the monitoring
activities for the testing of various hypotheses of impact predictions was
included.
Identification of who would conduct the monitoring activities was
also provided. The agency or agencies responsible for the proposed action
will be the parties that conduct monitoring. The proponents addressed
potential claims of biased monitoring results by stipulating that local
interdisciplinary teams (third parties) will review the monitoring data.
Also, the proponents stated that other governmental agencies wanting to
review the results may also do so.
In the monitoring program description, funding was implied as being
provided in an annual U.S. Forest Service budget. A clear statement
regarding the actual amount allocated for monitoring in such an annual
budget, and cost estimations for specific monitoring activities, were the
only items missing. It was apparent that monitoring was considered a high
priority of the proponents by the statement that "monitoring... (should)
be carefully and reasonably designed" (U.S. Bureau of Land Management and
U.S. Forest Service, 1994).
The proponents described how this monitoring program would reflect
the utilization of adaptive management principles. According to the
Supplemental EIS, adaptive management "is a continuing process of action-
based planning, monitoring, researching, evaluating and adjusting with the
objective of improving the implementation and achieving the goals of the
selected alternative," and it "acknowledges the need to manage resources
under circumstances that contain varying degrees of uncertainty, and the
need to adjust to new information" (U.S. Bureau of Land Management and
U.S. Forest Service, 1994). Therefore, a feedback loop was provided into
the on-going decision-making process for the purpose of adjusting to
improve implementation of the plan, while ultimately hoping to achieve the
objectives of regulatory standards and guidelines.
SUMMARY
A comprehensive or targeted cumulative effects monitoring program
should include usage of extant monitoring data and coordination with
pertinent governmental monitoring systems. Program planning and
implementation should include the delineation of objectives related to
expected key cumulative effects, selection of pertinent indicators
(variables) and determination of sampling location and frequency and
analytical requirements, the pre-development of response strategies
(management actions) and periodic reporting.
Based upon the systematic review of the described monitoring
programs in the 9 EISs (including the program for the northern spotted
11-9
-------
owl), Canter and Harrington (1997) have recommended that the following 12
elements be included in planning and describing cumulative effects
monitoring programs within the EIA process:
(1) identification of cumulative effects to be monitored;
(2) a definition of monitoring to encompass the planned program;
(3) specification of related laws and/or regulations;
(4) description of related extant monitoring programs being
conducted by other agencies or entities;
(5) delineation of the specific objectives of the program in terms
of establishing existing conditions, conducting cumulative
effects monitoring for the short term and long term, and/or
compliance monitoring (note that some objectives could be
stated in an hypothesis format, particularly as related to
cumulative effects monitoring);
(6) technical details related to what will be monitored, when
monitoring will take place, and where it will occur (inferred
here is the need for defining temporal and spatial scales for
the program);
(7) attention to special issues such as ecosystem monitoring and
the possible use of adaptive environmental management;
(8) implementation procedures for collection and evaluation of
data according to standard protocols, and who will be
responsible for monitoring (in-house staff and/or third party
groups);
(9) provisions for the use of data via feedback into EIA
decisionmaking processes (adaptive management principles could
be utilized);
(10) specifications for reporting frequency and distribution of
reports;
(11) provisions for public participation opportunities within the
overall cumulative effects monitoring program; and
(12) inclusion of budgetary requirements and actual or potential
sources of funding.
SELECTED REFERENCES
Allison, R.C., "Some Perspectives on Environmental Auditing," The
Environmental Professional. Vol. 10, 1988, pp. 185-188.
Canter, L.W., and Harrington, J.M., "Planning Environmental Monitoring
Programs within the Environmental Impact Assessment Process,*
International Journal of Environmental Studies fSection At. in press,
1997.
Council on Environmental Quality, "National Environmental Policy Act —
Regulations,* Federal Register. Vol. 43, No. 230, November 29, 1978, pp.
55978-56007.
11-10
-------
Economic Commission for Europe, "Post-Project Analysis in Environmental
Impact Assessment," ECE/ENVWA/11, 1990, United Nations, Geneva,
Switzerland, pp. 1-10 and 21-38.
Marcus, L.G., "A Methodology for Post-EIS (Environmental Impact Statement)
Monitoring," Geological Survey Circular 782, 1979, U.S. Geological Survey,
Washington, D.C.
Nelson, J.G., and Butler, R.W., "Assessing, Planning, and Management of
North Sea Oil Development Effects in the Shetland Islands," Environmental
Impact Assessment Review. Vol. 13, No. 4, July 1993, pp. 201-227.
Rennick, P.H., "A Cumulative Effects Monitoring System for the Niagara
Escarpment Plan Area," Ch. 10, Cumulative Effects Assessment in Canada;
From Concept to Practice. Kennedy, A.J., editor, Alberta Association of
Professional Biologists, Edmonton, Alberta, Canada, 1994, pp. 119-133.
Sadler, B., and Davies, M., "Environmental Monitoring and Audit:
Guidelines for Post-Project Analysis of Development Impacts and Assessment
Methodology," August 1988, Centre for Environmental Management and
Planning, Aberdeen University, Aberdeen, Scotland, pp. 3-6 and 11-14.
Tennessee Valley Authority, "Tennessee River and Reservoir System
Operation and Planning Review," Final Environmental Impact Statement,
TVA/RDG/EQS — 91/1, 1991, Knoxville, Tennessee.
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, "Elk Creek Lake, Rogue River Basin, Oregon,"
Final Environmental Impact Statement, Supplement No. 2, May 1991, Portland
District, Portland, Oregon.
U.S. Bureau of Land Management and U.S. Forest Service, "Final-
Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement on Management of Habitat for
Late-Successional and Old-Growth Forest Related Species Within the Range
of the Northern Spotted Owl," Vol. I-II, 1994, Portland, Oregon.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, "Resource Document for the Ground
Water Monitoring Strategy Workshop," March 1985, Office of Ground Water
Protection, Washington, D.C.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, "Environmental Auditing Policy
Statement," Federal Register. Vol. 51, No. 131, July 9, 1986, p. 25004 ff.
11-11
-------
CHAPTER 12
MITIGATION OF CUMULATIVE EFFECTS —
BIODIVERSITY AND ECOSYSTEM MANAGEMENT CONSIDERATIONS
The focus of cumulative effects considerations within the
environmental impact assessment (EIA) process has been related to possible
changes in resources (e.g., air or water quality or trout fisheries) or
ecosystems. Because of the larger spatial and temporal scales typically
associated with cumulative effects, broader environmental issues may need
to be addressed. Two such issues are biodiversity and ecosystem
management. These two issues can be considered from the perspective of
mitigation planning for undesirable cumulative effects on resources and
ecosystems. This chapter explores the fundamental aspects of biodiversity
and ecosystem management regarding potential mitigation considerations for
cumulative effects. In so doing, it should be recognized that mitigation
for cumulative effects will tend to become more focused on these broader
issues.
BACKGROUND ON BIODIVERSITY
Biological resources are important from ecological, economic, and
aesthetic perspectives. Ecological importance is derived from the
provision of ecological services, such as regulation of hydrologic cycles,
carbon and nutrient cycling, soil fertility, support of commercially and
recreationally important fish and wildlife populations; and from
aesthetic, ethical, and cultural values associated with unique forms of
life. The diversity of species and genetic strains provides critically
important resources for potential use in agriculture, medicine, and
industry. Sustainable usage of these resources provide economic value to
both current and future generations (Council on Environmental Quality,
1993). Aesthetic value is derived via recreational activities, including
visits to "natural areas" in order to experience undisturbed locations.
An important indicator of the ecological, economic, and aesthetic
value of biological resources is biological diversity. Biological
diversity (or biodiversity) has been defined as the variety of species,
the genetic composition of species and communities, ecosystems and
ecological structures, and the variety of functions and processes at all
levels (Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency, 1996). A related
definition is that biological diversity (biodiversity) is the variability
among living organisms from all sources including, inter alia,
terrestrial, marine and other aquatic ecosystems and the ecological
complexes of which they are part; this includes diversity within species,
between species and of ecosystems (Canadian Environmental Assessment
Agency, 1996). Table 12.1 summarizes some of the components of biological
diversity (Council on Environmental Quality, 1993).
Recognition of the importance of biological diversity was included
in the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA); specifically, item (4) in
Section 101 states that it shall be a national policy to "preserve
important historic, cultural, and natural aspects of our national
heritage, and maintain wherever possible, an environment which supports
diversity and variety of individual choice." Thus biodiversity
considerations could be incorporated in both project-level impact studies
and strategic environmental assessments^ SEAs).
12-1
-------
Table 12.1: Components of Biological Diversity (Council on Environmental
Quality, 1993)
• Regional ecoavatetn diversity; The pattern of local ecosystems across
•the landscape, sometimes referred to as "landscape diversity" or
"large ecosystem diversity."
• Local ecosystem diversity; The diversity of all living and non-living
components within a given area and their interrelationships.
Ecosystems are the critical biological/ecological operating units in
nature. A related term is "community diversity" which refers to the
variety of unique assemblages of plants and animals (communities).
Individual species and plant communities exist as elements of local
ecosystems, linked by processes such as succession and predation.
• species diversity; The variety of individual species, including
animals, plants, fungi, and microorganisms.
• Genetic diversity; Variation within species. Genetic diversity
enables species to survive in a variety of different environments,
and allows them to evolve in response to changing environmental
conditions.
The hierarchical nature of these components is an important concept.
Regional ecosystem patterns form the basic matrix for, and thus have
important influences on, local ecosystems. Local ecosystems, in turn, form
the matrix for species and genetic diversity, which can in turn affect
ecosystem and regional patterns.
Relationships and interactions are critical components as well. Plants,
animals, communities, and other elements exist in complex webs, which
determine their ecological significance.
12-2
-------
Of particular concern in relation to the EIA process are the
potential detrimental effects on biodiversity which can occur from
individual to multiple development activities. Some examples of
development projects which are likely to induce significant impacts on
biodiversity are listed in Table 12.2 (World Bank, 1997). Further,
application of the EIA process at strategic levels to generate SEAs will
also necessitate consideration of biodiversity impacts. In fact, it could
be argued that biodiversity impact considerations are more important in
SEAs than in project-level EIAs due to the larger geographical areas and
longer time frames typically associated with SEAs. This same argument can
be made for project-level EIAs which include cumulative effects
assessments (CEAs).
In late 1991 and 1992 the Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) in
the United States, in conjunction with several other federal agencies,
conducted a series of conferences designed to explore the need for
improved incorporation of concerns for ecosystem integrity and the
protection of biological diversity into the decision-making process under
NEPA (Council on Environmental Quality, 1993). A number of factors were
identified which have or are contributing to the decline of biodiversity
in the United States. Such decline can be seen in the loss of ecosystems,
wetlands, and habitat for threatened or endangered animal species. These
losses have typically been associated with the cumulative effects of
multiple projects in a defined geographical area. Factors contributing to.
the decline of biodiversity include physical alterations due to resource
exploitation and . changing j-. land . usage; . pollution; - over harvest ing;
introduction of exotic .(non-native) species and elimination of native
species through predation, competition, genetic modification,.and disease
transmission; disruption of natural processes; and global climate change
(Council on Environmental Quality, 1993).
Because of mankind's influence on the global decline of
biodiversity, in the Rio de Janeiro conference on environment and
development held in 1992, the United Nations initiated a Convention on
Biological Diversity. The Convention is a legally binding international
treaty which obliges signatory countries to assess the adequacy of current
efforts to conserve biodiversity and to use biological resources in a
sustainable manner (Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency, 1996).
Further, Article 14 of the Convention recognizes the EIA process as an
important decision-making process for the protection of biological
diversity. Additional information on the Convention on Biological
Diversity is available elsewhere (Krattiger, et al., 1994).
Biodiversity considerations can be important in environmental
management. The basic goal of biodiversity conservation is to maintain ~
naturally occurring ecosystems, communities, and native species.
Conservation of"' "existing ""biodiversity 1*""'Ta— ba«ic—principle-*bf**
environmentally sustainable development (United Nations Environment
Program, 1996). The basic goals when considering biodiversity in
management are to identify and locate activities in less sensitive areas,
to minimize impacts where possible, and to restore lost diversity where
practical (Council on Environmental Quality, 1993). Certain principles
(not rules) can be enumerated for incorporating consideration of
biodiversity into environmental management, including the EIA process with
associated cumulative effects considerations; these principles include
(Council on Environmental Quality, 1993):
(1) take a "big picture" or ecosystem view;
(2) protect communities and ecosystems;
12-3
-------
Table 12.2: Examples of Development Projects Which Are Likely to Induce
Significant Impacts on Biodiversity (World Bank, 1997)
• Agriculture and livestock projects involving land clearance,
wetlands elimination, water diversion and inundation for storage
reservoirs, displacement of wildlife by domestic livestock, use of
pesticides, or planting of monoculture crop systems.
• Fisheries/aquaculture projects involving conversion of important
natural migration, breeding or nursery sites, over-fishing, or
introduction of exotic species.
• Forestry projects that involve clear-felling, or other forms of
intensive forest harvesting or conversion of natural habitats,
construction of access roads, or establishment of forest products
industries which may induce development.
• Transportation projects involving construction of highways, bridges,
rural roads, railways, airports, or canals that penetrate natural
habitats and ecosystems and open them to colonization and
immigration; also, channelization of rivers for navigation and
dredging and coastal land reclamation for ports.
• Power projects involving (1) hydroelectric development that
inundates or transforms natural habitats and ecosystems, alterations
of rivers because of dams or water diversions, and construction of
power transmission corridors through undisturbed natural areas; and
(2) projects that depend upon fossil fuels from which airborne
pollution may threaten or destroy vegetation or from which heated
effluents may elevate the temperature of receiving waters.
• Oil and gas projects involving land clearance, pipeline
construction, coastal storage, transfer and handling facilities, or
offshore activities.
• Industrial development involving thermal pollution from cooling
water discharges or chemical pollution of aquatic and terrestrial
environments via air or water.
• Large-scale loss of natural habitat to mining and mineral
exploration.
• Urban and tourism development in sensitive areas such as coastal
zones.
12-4
-------
(3) minimize fragmentation, promote the natural pattern and
connectivity of habitats;
(4) promote native species, avoid introducing non-native species;
(5) protect rare and ecologically important species;
(6) protect unique or sensitive environments;
(7) maintain or mimic natural ecosystem processes;
(8) maintain or mimic naturally occurring structural diversity;
(9) protect genetic diversity;
(10) restore ecosystems, communities, and species; and
(11) monitor for biodiversity impacts, acknowledge uncertainty, and
be flexible.
BIODIVERSITY AND THE EIA PROCESS
The importance of addressing biodiversity within the EIA process has
been recognized by many countries. For example, in addition to developed
countries such as the United States, Canada, and Australia, this subject
has also been recognized in Indonesia (Dahuri, 1994), Malaysia (Leong,
1994), and Thailand (Bunpapong, 1994). Several Canadian case studies on
the incorporation of biodiversity considerations in the EIA process are
available (Doran, et al., 1998). In New South Wales in Australia, the EIA
process has been linked to programs focused on the conservation of
biodiversity (Stone and Little, 1998). Further, international
organizations such as the United Nations Environment Program and the World
Bank have responded to the need for addressing biodiversity within the EIA
process (United Nations Environment Program, 1996; World Bank, 1995; and
World Bank, 1997). However, it should be recognized that such
biodiversity considerations have primarily related to project-level EIA.
Process and Methods
The Council on Environmental Quality (1993) has suggested that
agencies can incorporate biodiversity considerations in the EIA process in
the following key ways:
(1) during the scoping process, the proponent agency should
determine whether the proposed action may affect biodiversity
via direct, indirect, or cumulative means;
(2) during the analysis of impacts, the proponent agency should
determine the potential direct, indirect, and cumulative
impacts on biodiversity of the proposed action and each of the
alternatives;
(3) during mitigation planning, the proponent agency should
identify appropriate mitigation measures in response to the
potential direct, indirect, and/or cumulative impacts on
biodiversity; and
(4) planning and implementation of targeted monitoring programs to
document the experienced biodiversity impacts during project
12-5
-------
operation, including cumulative impacts, and the effectiveness
of the implemented mitigation measures.
It has been suggested that tfie consideration of biodiversity issues
in the EIA process represents an extension of current practice associated
with assessing ecological impacts. Some key topics to be addressed in
this extension (some of which may have been addressed in ecological impact
considerations) include (United Rations Environment Program, 1996): (1)
taxonomic diversity - the range of micro-organisms and plant and animal
species in an ecosystem or area; (2) genetic diversity - the range of
genetic characteristics found in a population or species; (3) ecosystem
diversity - the range of interacting natural systems (for example,
lake/wetlands and forest/lake) present within a region, landscape or the
biosphere; (4) ecosystem functions - the interactions provided by species
and ecosystems with other species, and the relationship between local
species and systems and global support systems; and (5) the abiotic matrix
- effects on the non-living portion of the soil, water, atmosphere and
biophysical processes which support species and ecosystems. Addressing
these topics requires a broader view of the spatial and temporal
boundaries of a study, with such a view being a necessity in CEA.
The Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency (1996) suggested the
following biodiversity-related questions (modified to focus on cumulative
effects) which EIA practitioners should consider during the scoping phase
of an impact study:
(1) What species, communities and ecological processes would be
impacted by the project (either directly, indirectly, or
cumulatively)? Are any of these species endangered, endemic,
sustainably used, new to science, or special in some other
way?
(2) How much habitat would be eliminated or degraded as a result
of cumulative effects, including short-term use areas vital to
seasonal, life-history or migratory cycles?
(3) Are critical thresholds or levels of capacity being reached,
i.e., are the species already in severe decline?
(4) What values does society attribute to each species, community
and ecological process?
(5) Could any migratory species be affected in another portion of
their range and thus cumulatively affect the
species/population?
(6) What time, spatial, or other issues need to be considered for
each of the species, communities and ecological processes
affected directly, indirectly, or cumulatively by the project?
(7) Do major systemic or population changes appear to be taking
place as a result of past development and/or management
practices?
(8) What historical trends or cumulative losses of species and
habitat are involved?
Methods which can aid in the identification of cumulative effects on
biodiversity prior to initiation of the scoping process include
checklists, matrices, network diagrams, and over lay-mapping via the use of
geographic information systems (World Bank, 1997). Further information on
12-6
-------
these methods is in Chapter 5 herein and in Canter (1996). Literature
reviews of biodiversity impacts organized by project type can also be
helpful. Such reviews can be used to identify the cumulative effects of
multiple types of projects in a geographical area.
Current information will be needed on existing biodiversity
conditions in the geographical area to be included in an impact study.
The first consideration should be to assemble extant information. One key
information source in the United States is the natural heritage network;
it is summarized in Table 12.3 (Council on Environmental Quality, 1993).
Contacts with federal and state environmental and natural resources
agencies should also yield useful information. In fact, broader scale
ecological studies are now being conducted. These types of studies would
be particularly useful in addressing cumulative effects. For example, the
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency has conducted an ecological
assessment of the mid-Atlantic region (encompassing Delaware, the District
of Columbia, Maryland, Pennsylvania, Virginia, and West Virginia) (Jones,
et al., 1997). To illustrate the type of included information which could
be used in either project-level EIAs or SEAs, following are some of the
major findings (Jones, et al., 1997):
(1) The mid-Atlantic region has diverse spatial patterns of
agriculture and urban lands as compared to other parts of the
country (about 10% of the nation's watersheds have been almost
completely converted to agricultural land, while about 40% of
the nation's watersheds have only small amounts of
agriculture, excluding livestock grazing). Mountainous
watersheds in the mid-Atlantic region have the least amount of
agricultural and urban land cover and coastal areas the
greatest.
(2) Mid-Atlantic region watersheds have relatively high (more
desirable) values for forests, forest connectivity, and
forests near streams (riparian zones) as compared to other
parts of the country, especially the Midwest and southwestern
United States.
(3) Six watersheds in the south-central portion of the region
along the border with North Carolina, ten watersheds in the
southwestern portion of the region, and three watersheds in
north-central Pennsylvania have the most desirable landscape
conditions based on the suite of landscape indicators. These
areas have relatively low values for population, road density*
and agriculture, and have the highest amounts of forest and
riparian vegetation.
(4) Nineteen watersheds in the northwestern, northeastern and
Norfolk, Virginia areas of the region have the least desirable
landscape conditions. These watersheds have high values for
population density, road density, agriculture on steep slopes,
and sulfate deposition, and low values for riparian vegetation
and interior forest indicators. These areas are typically
around the major metropolitan areas of Baltimore-Washington/
D.C., Pittsburgh, and Norfolk.
(5) The remaining watersheds fall between the most desirable and
least desirable conditions. Some appear to be in a desirable
condition relative to one environmental theme, but in a less-
desirable condition relative to another. For example,
watersheds in the Delmarva Peninsula are in better relative
condition from a water quality perspective, but provide little
interior forest habitat. Conversely, several watersheds
12-7
-------
Table 12.3:'The Natural Heritage Network (Council on
'Environmental Quality, 1993)
SMt NatmnJ Heritage Date Canten have been established ia all fifty stales ss cooperative ventures of The Nature Conservancy
(TNC) and various stale agencies. Satellite data centers operate in several staffed preserves, including two National Parks, and in
various office* of cooperating state and federal agencies and private institutions. A number of federal agencies, including DOD and
the U.S. Forest Service, have agreements with TNC to collect and manage data through the Heritage Network.
Heritage data centers focus on natural community types and individual species! The idea is that major natural communities will set
as a "coarse fiber* to capture populations of the majority of species, including invertebrates and other small organisms too numerous
to inventory tndrviduslly, white focus on population* of known rare species will act as a "fine filter* for these uncommon elements.
:AD Heritage programs also amass and organize data on land ownership, exiatinf preserves and protected areas, secondary information
aebouf pubficationa, iiposilorin, individual experts, institutions), and key individual contacts (key data users, agency
A Urge degree of atandardizatton of terminology, methodi. formats, and systems has been achieved and maintained among the many
Heritage programs. This facilitates the exchange of information, efficient methodological research and technical support, consistent
commiintcitnTii with users, and the combination of information fimii many programs.
Fundamental information available in this system includes the following:
Spare
Each Heritage data center tries to maintain information on all Jne vascular plants and vertebrate animal species in its state or area of
covacageistong with information on a limited number of invertebrates and non-vascular plant* believed to be particularly rare or
otherwise of conservation interest. A systematic ranking process is employed to ascertain the relative degree of biological
endangerment of each species included, and this ia documented in element ranking records. Each species is ranked at to its sums
on a global and state basis using consistent criteria of rarity (the estimated number of occurrences of each element) snd threat
(vulnerability to human disturbance or destruction). Using this system, the highest priority would be given to species with a ranking
indicating threats at both global and stste levels. Rankings consist of a letter-G for global and S for state - and a number - with
I indicating the highest threat level. A GISI ranking would indicate that the species or community is critically imperilled both
globally and regionally (typically five or fewer occurrences or extremely vulnerable to extinction due to biological (acton).
Originally, Heritage programs only dealt with rare species, but it was gradually found desirable to include at least limited amounts
of information on all vertebrates and vascular plants. However, for efficiency's sake, total inventory effort is still allocated among
specie* in proportion to their relative endangerment.
Each state Heritage data center develops a laxooomic classification of natural community types known within its geographic area.
In places where there is a well-developed local tradition of comminiiy classification, the local system u adopted as a beguining point
and nKxUfied as knowledge snd penpectiveaccumulsle. In other places, a new classification is developed. Efforts arc now underway
to ensure regional and national conshttncy among these efforts. Heritage data centers attempt to include occurrences of all community
types. Communities are ranked according to a set of criteria similar to the species ranking system.
OtlwrBiclopallaformatiam;
Other types of biological information can include anything that ineriu inventory and conservation planniiv, such as areas of sessonal
wildlife concept ration, breeding colonies of common species, aitstanding individuaU (such as chajnpion trees), and areaa of historical
Geld work.
Managrf (or Protected) Arm;
All Stale Heritage programs gather and organize information on all protected and semi-protected areas in their stales, regardless of
This information cam provide a comprehensive picture of protected natural land and habitat for each stale.
12-8
-------
throughout the Ridge-and-Valley and Appalachian Plateau areas
have the opposite pattern, with relatively more interior
forest habitat but leas-desirable conditions for water-related
indicators (such as the amount of crop land on steep slopes).
In many cases the availability of current biodiversity information
may be inadequate. Accordingly, field studies may be necessary. Examples
of field methods/techniques which can be used for describing existing
biodiversity conditions in an impact study are listed in Table 12.4 (World
Bank, 1997). Conduction of such field studies would only be expected for
large-scale development proposals where cumulative effects are a concern.
In most impact studies incorporating CEA, it would be expected that
existing biodiversity information would be utilized.
Cumulative effects prediction for biodiversity may involve
calculations related to changes in habitat size, changes in habitat
quality or biodiversity indices, and/or the use of sophisticated ecosystem
models. Qualitative predictions can be made based on the review of
existing conditions and the application of professional judgment.
Additional information on biophysical impact prediction is in Canter
(1996).
The significance of predicted cumulative effects on biodiversity
should be described relative to the local, regional, national, and
international context, as appropriate. Such significance determinations
must be based on the professional judgment of qualified biodiversity
specialists. Some biodiversity-related questions which could be
considered by EIA practitioners and biodiversity specialists when
analyzing the potential direct, indirect, or cumulative effects of a
proposed action include (Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency, 1996):
(1) What impact (direct, indirect, or cumulative) will the
proposed action (project) have on the genetic composition of
each species? Are different genotypes of the same species
likely to be isolated from each other? To what extent will
habitat or populations be fragmented?
(2) How will the project cumulatively affect ecosystem processes?
Is this proposal likely to make the ecosystem more vulnerable
or susceptible to change?
(3) What abiotic effects will devolve - changes in seasonal flows,
temperature regime, soil loss, turbidity, nutrients, oxygen
balance, etc?
(4) Does the project and related cumulative effects contribute to
or undermine the sustainable use of biological resources?
(5) Does it set a precedent for conversion to a more intensive
level of use of the area?
(6) Is diversity measured at the species, community and ecosystem
level?
(7) Have exotics been included in measures of diversity?
(8) Have standardized protocols for diversity measurement been
applied when available?
(9) Is the biological resource in question at the limit of its
range?
12-9
-------
Table 12.4: Examples of Field Methods/Techniques Useful for Determining
Baseline Conditions for Biodiversity (World Bank, 1997}
Ecosystem/habitat level
Targets
• Distribution, richness and
diversity of habitats and
ecosystems
• Patchiness,
connectivity/ fragmentation
of habitat ( s ) /ecosystem ( s ) ;
corridors; fragile habitats
and ecosystems
• Carrying capacity and
community dynamics
Population/s
Targets
• Population structure and
dynamics, including
harvesting pressure ( s ) ,
abundance/composition of
key species
• Existence of endemic, rare,
vulnerable, and/or
endangered species
Methods /Techniques
• Field surveys
(transects/quadrants) and
inventories, maps of fauna
and flora
• Remote sensing, landuse
maps, field surveys
• Measurement of standing
crop/biomass or
productivity
pecies level
Methods /Techniques
• Inventories, field surveys,
demographic analysis; use
of biological indicators
and indices (species
sensitive to changing
conditions)
• Inventories, field surveys
12-10
-------
(10) Does the species demonstrate adaptability?
(11) Have sustainable yield calculations, including population
dynamic parameters, been determined (e.g., lake capacities,
population thresholds)?
(12) Is the data dependable? What are the sources used?
(13) Is the assessment based on long-term ecological monitoring,
baseline surveys, reconnaissance level field observations, and
primary research?
(14) Is sampling planned on a suitably spaced geographic grid
pattern (two-dimensional for land, three-dimensional for lakes
and oceans, etc.)?
(15) Does the sampling cover more than one or two years to assess
annual variations and all the seasons studied?
The following guiding principles (or goals) have also been suggested
for use in assessing the effects of a proposed action on biodiversity
(Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency, 1996):
(1) minimum impact on biological diversity;
(2) no "net loss" of the ecosystem, species populations or genetic
diversity;
(3) application of the precautionary principle to avoid
irreversible losses (the precautionary principle is used where
an activity raises threats or harm to the environment or human
health, and precautionary measures taken even if certain cause
and effect relationships are not established scientifically);
(4) no effect on the sustainable use of biological resources;
(5) maintenance of natural processes and adequate areas of
different landscapes for wild flora and fauna and other wild
organisms;
(6) use inferential information, e.g., identify species that are
rare or at the limit of their range and therefore a possible
early warning of critical ecological change;
(7) where possible, use indicator species or valued ecosystem
components to focus the assessment;
(8) define the spatial parameters that characterize ecological
processes and components in order to provide a regional
context for an analysis of the direct, indirect, and
cumulative effects of the proposed project;
(9) identify the best practicable option (mitigation) for
maintaining biological diversity; and
(10) examine the cumulative effects of other activities in the
area/region to date and evaluate the added "effect" that this
project, and others likely to follow, will have on biological
diversity.
12-11
-------
Finally, it should be noted that the assessment (or interpretation)
of information on levels of biodiversity in specific geographical areas
can be problematic. Accordingly, Spellerberg (1998) has suggested a
conceptual framework for the development of "standards" for biological
diversity. However, the adoption of numerical standards, or even
qualitative (descriptive) standards, is not expected to occur for some
tine.
Following the identification, prediction, and assessment of
biodiversity impacts, it may be necessary to identify and implement.
appropriate mitigation measures. Examples of mitigation measures for
adverse biodiversity impacts include, but are not limited to, the
following (World Bank, 1997): (1) sit* protection through project
redesign; (2) strategic habitat retention; (3) restricted conversion or
modification; (4) reintroduction of species; (5) post-development
restoration works; (6) restoration of degraded habitats; and (7)
establishment and maintenance of an ecologically similar protected area of
suitable size and contiguity^ The appropriateness of one or combinations
of these measures would be dependent on the project being analyzed and the
cumulative effects concerns.
The importance of public involvement in conserving biological
diversity is also well-recognized, especially for situations where
conservation involves imposing restrictions upon the use of lands enjoyed
by the public or considered the domain of indigenous peoples (World Bank,
1997). Accordingly, public involvement should begin in scoping and
continue through the identification of pertinent mitigation measures.
Concerns and Obstacles
Biodiversity considerations should be incorporated in environmental
quality planning and in the EIA process (also called the National
Environmental Policy Act process, or the NEPA process in the United
States). However, there are concerns associated with such incorporation
in relation to current EIA practice, and three illustrations will be
mentioned. Examples of some current weaknesses in the NEPA process in the
United States in relation to biodiversity include the following (Council
on Environmental Quality, 1993):
(1) Inadequate consideration of "non-listed" species. Agencies
should address the requirements of the Endangered Species Act
in EXSs (environmental impact statements) and EAs
(environmental assessments). Certainly, impacts to threatened
and endangered species directly affect biodiversity. However,
. only about 600 U.S. species are officially listed as
threatened or endangered, while estimates indicate that as
many as 9,000 species may currently be at risk. Reliance on
listed threatened and endangered species is likely to address
only a small portion of the nation's imperiled biodiversity.
(2) Inadequate consideration of "non-protected" areas. While NEPA
documents may give adequate recognition to direct, indirect,
or cumulative impacts on areas that have been set aside as
parks or refuges, or are already identified as meriting
special protection (e.g., wetlands), they often do not
consider areas that have not been so designated, but that are
equally important to biodiversity.
(3) Inadequate consideration of "non-economically important"
species. The potential effects on species of recreational and
commercial importance are often considered. However, some
12-12
-------
practices intended to maximize protection or production of
these species conflict with wider biodiversity objectives.
For example, the impoundment of salt marshes to create
waterfowl habitat can reduce estuarine biodiversity. The
stocking of rainbow trout for sport and commercial fisheries
has resulted in the replacement of wild brook trout in
Appalachian streams, and the endangerment of native squawfish,
chubs, and suckers in the Colorado River system. The creation
of forest openings and edge habitat favoring game species is
now recognized as causing severe impacts to interior forest-
dwelling species.
(4) Inadequate consideration of cumulative impacts. Finally, and
perhaps most importantly, the majority of EISs and EAs deal
only with project-specific considerations. if effects on
biodiversity are to be adequately assessed, it must be done on
an ecosystem or regional scale, taking into account cumulative
effects. Avoidance or mitigation of impacts at the project
level (such as redesigning a highway to avoid damaging a
sensitive bog, or modifying a coal lease to protect a raptor
nesting area) has been, and will continue to be, critically
important in minimizing biodiversity losses. Yet, in the
absence of protection at the larger scale, ecosystem patterns
and processes so important to biodiversity will not be
sustained over the long term.
To serve as a second illustration, the World Bank (1997) has
indicated that the following mistakes or oversights are occurring relative
to biodiversity in Bank-sponsored impact studies: (1) inadequate
determination of the spatial context of the project; (2) poor or
insufficient existing information and treatment of biodiversity as simple
"lists" of species found in a project area; (3) lack of rigor in the
analysis of costs/benefits; and (4) insufficient attention to
implementation and monitoring of mitigation measures and environmental
management plans, including institutional arrangements. Each of these
mistakes/oversights are relevant for direct, indirect, and cumulative-
effects.
Finally, the following obstacles to the effective incorporation of
biodiversity considerations in the EIA process in the United States have
been identified (Council on Environmental Quality, 1993): (1) lack of
recognition of the importance of biodiversity; (2) lack of information on
local and regional ecosystem diversity; (3) lack of awareness of available
information; (4) incomplete understanding of biodiversity conservation and
its relationship to ecosystem management; (5) mismatches between agency
jurisdictions, boundaries and ecosystem boundaries; (6) institutional
conflicts within and among agencies; and (7) the absence of cohesive
regional ecosystem plans and strategies. These obstacles are also
relevant for direct, indirect, and cumulative effects.
Recommendations for Improvement
NEPA provides a mandate and a framework for federal agencies in the
United States to consider all reasonably foreseeable environmental effects
of their actions. To the extent that federal actions affect biodiversity,
and that it is possible to both anticipate and evaluate those effects,
NEPA requires federal agencies to do so. Accordingly, and despite the
obstacles listed above, the CEQ has developed six recommendations for
agency-driven improvements in the consideration of biodiversity in NEPA
analyses, these recommendations and associated comments are in Table 12.5
(Council on Environmental Quality, 1993). Adherence to these
12-13
-------
NJ
Table 12.5. J^^ndationa for Agency Improvements Related to Biodiversity Considerations in the
NEPA Process (Council on Environmental Quality, 1993}
Recommendation
Acknowledge die conservation of biodiversity as national policy and incorporate
in consideration in the NEPA process.
Encourage and seek out opportunities to participate in efforts to develop regional
ecosystem plans.
Actively seek relevant information from sources both within and outside
government agencies.
Encourage and participate in efforts to improve communication, cooperation, and
collaboration between and among governmental and non-govemmenlal enliiiei.
Improve the availability of information on the status and distribution of
biodiversity, and on techniques for managing and restoring it.
6. Expand the information base on which biodiversity analytei and management
decisions are based.
Comments
Agencies should insure dial both staff responsible for conducting environmental impact
analyses and decision-makers responsible for considering die findings of those analyses are
familiar with the importance of the biodiversity issue and ha relevance to their work.
Agency-sponsored environmental mining courses should discuss biodiversity and how best
to consider it in die NEPA process and to all planning, design, and management.
Regional ecosystem frameworks are a critical element of conserving biological diversity.
Such regional efforts can provide an ecosystem framework for evaluating die impacts of
individual projects on biodiversity, and provide a common basis for describing the affected
environment. Both will save time and financial resources In preparing NEPA documents.
Agencies should investigate and consider participation in efforts that may be already in
progress in areas where racy have Jurisdiction or interest.
Some regional frameworks exist that do not explicitly address biodiversity. In such cases.
agencies should consider establishing specific goals and objectives for the conservation of
biodiversity, within those frameworks.
Finally, where such efforts are lacking entirely, agencies should consider initialing diem.
While information on the stalua and distribution of biota is incomplete, a great deal of
information is available from a wide variety of sources. Agencies should look to each
other, to stale agencies, and to academic and other non governmental entities. By doing so.
agencies can benefit from die resources and technical capabilities of others and reduce die
costs associated with collecting and managing information on which ecoayslcm and
biodiversity analyses depend.
Improved communication, cooperation, and collaboration will enormously improve die
prospccla for overcoming the barriers described earlier. Working with others can help to
identify common interests and overlapping or complementary missions, and can lead to
mutual sharing of information, technical capabilities, and expertise. Efforts to do so will
require support at the management and policy-making levels within agencies, as well as at
die level of die staff responsible for carrying out NEPA analyses.
Agencies mat support or sponsor research and development efforts that will improve our
ability to evaluate and manage for biodiversity should ensure that the information they
obtain is maintained in a formal dial is useful and is readily accessible.
Agencies should consider opportunities to cooperate with and benefit from the National
Biodiversity Center, presently in die plsnning and design stages. A key role of die Center
will be lo identify existing ecological information and make it more readily available for UK
in environmental planning and assessment.
Basic research is needed into s boil of issues relating lo both ecosystem management and
biodiversity conservation. These include ecosystem functioning; selection of indicators;
prediction of die effects of chsnge on ecosystems; snd establishment of spatial and temporal
boundaries for impacts and analyses.
Agencies should recognize die research opportunities afforded by projects, and contider
sponsoring or cooperating wilh academic institutions, private industry, and others on
feaeaych lo advance ecological uod«r»l«t»Jing.
-------
recommendations would enhance the consideration of cumulative effects on
biodiversity within the EIA process.
BACKGROUND ON ECOSYSTEM MANAGEMENT
Ecosystem (ecological) management includes the analysis of both the
elements and the interrelationships involved in maintaining ecological
integrity (Council on Environmental Quality, 1993). Such management
should use a local-to-regional perspective that considers impacts at the
appropriate scale within the context of the entire ecosystem. These
considerations are particularly important when exploring mitigation
opportunities for cumulative effects. One aspect of ecosystem management
involves attention to the conservation of biological diversity. A science-
based book on ecosystem management is now available. The book, which
includes 11 chapters written by 18 experts, addresses fundamental concepts
and their applications (Woodley, Francis, and Kay, 1994).
The federal government in the United States is encouraging the
implementation of ecosystem management approaches within and between
federal agencies and between federal, state, and local agencies. Such
agency collaboration is typically necessary when addressing mitigation
considerations in relation to cumulative effects. To facilitate the
implementation, the Inter agency Ecosystem Management Task Force was formed
by the federal government in the mid-1990s. The work of this Task Force
and other entities and individuals has been instrumental in defining the
following general principles for ecological management (Keiter and Adler,
1998):
(1) Common ecological management goals should be socially defined
through a collaborative vision process that involves all.
interested participants and that incorporates ecological,
economic, and social considerations.
(2) Given that most ecosystems and watersheds, as well as
cumulative effects, transcend conventional geopolitical
boundaries, ecological management requires coordination among
federal, state, tribal, and local governmental entities as
well as collaboration with other interested parties.
(3) Ecological management policies and decisions should be based
upon integrated and comprehensive scientific information that
addresses multiple rather than single resources.
(4) Ecological management seeks to maintain and restore
biodiversity and ecosystem integrity.
(5) Ecological management involves management at large spatial and
temporal scales that correspond to ecosystems and watersheds;
such scales are typically required when including CEA within
the EIA process.
(6) Given the finite nature of public funds and other resources,
ecological management enables agencies to engage in careful
targeting to select achievable solutions and to allocate
resources efficiently.
(7) Ecological management requires an iterative, adaptive
management approach to account for changing goals and value*
and new scientific information concerning ecological
conditions. In fact, because of scientific uncertainties
related to cumulative effects on ecosystems, monitoring and
12-15
-------
adaptation of management practices represent a desirable
approach.
Management of land resources, ecosystems, and watersheds over a
large geographical area for long periods of time is required in
comprehensive ecological management (Keither and Adler, 1998). Stakhiv
(1996) has identified four institutional reasons for using the watershed
as the basic scale for organizing such ecological management programs;
they are: (1) the proliferation of disparate regulatory agency programs
that protect various aspects of water-dependent public health and
environmental quality concerns; (2) the increased emphasis by all federal
resources management agencies on improving ecosystem management and
restoration through their respective programs and authorities; (3)
budgetary constraints which are forcing greater cooperation and
complementarity among federal programs; and (4) the watershed scale,
rather than the large river basin scale, makes comprehensive planning
efforts more tractable. An additional reason is that the watershed
represents a potentially convenient geographical scale for organizing
cumulative effects information.
Examples of Ecosystem Management
Examples of ecosystem management case studies are described by
Sommers and Lackey (1997). The case studies include: (1) the Interior
Columbia River Basin Ecosystem Management Project by the U.S. Forest
Service and the U.S. Bureau of Land Management (the Basin is in the
Pacific Northwest region); (2) the Southern Appalachian Assessment within
a region encompassing parts of seven states; (3) five watershed
assessments incorporating the ecological risk assessment process (the five
watersheds included Big Darby Creek in central Ohio, Clinch River Valley
in southwest Virginia, Middle Platte River in south central Nebraska,
Middle Snake River in south central Idaho, and Waquoit Bay on the southern
shore of Cape Cod in Massachusetts); and (4) several illustrations from
the U.S. Department of Defense (included are examples from Camp Pendleton,
California; the Chesapeake Bay Program; the Mojave Desert Ecosystem
Initiative; and Eglin Air Force Base, Florida). Each of these examples
are related to mitigation planning in response to recognition of the
undesirable consequences of cumulative effects from development projects
or plans.
Ecosystem management has also been addressed by the General
Accounting Office (GAO) in two review reports (U.S. General Accounting
Office, 1994a and 1994b). One GAO study relates to ecosystem management
opportunities for four federal agencies — the National Park Service, the
Bureau of Land Management (BLM), and the Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS)
within the Department of the Interior and the Forest Service within the
Department of Agriculture (U.S. General Accounting Office, 1994a). The
relationship between the cumulative effects of military training
activities and ecosystem management is addressed in the other GAO study
(U.S. General Accounting Office, 1994b). The six facilities which were
addressed include: (1) Fort Greely Maneuver Area and Air Drop Zone and
(2) Fort Wainwright's Yukon Maneuver Area, both in Alaska; (3) Goldwater
Air Force Range in Arizona; (4) Nellie Air Force Range and (5) Bravo-20
Bombing Range, both in Nevada; and (6) McGregor Range in New Mexico.
Ecosystem management perspectives also need to be incorporated into
federal agency permitting processes, particularly when the permit review
reveals cumulative effects issues. For example, implications related to
the permitting of mining operations in the western United States have been
addressed by McDonald and Martin (1995). Permitting for grazing actions
12-16
-------
should also include the consideration of ecosystem management
opportunities.
The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers has also been engaged in a number
of ecological restoration projects in the 1990s. Such projects are being
done to mitigate cumulative effects on specific ecological resources. As
such» a prototype has been developed for plan formulation and cost
estimation for such environmental restoration projects (Scodari, et al.,
1995). Environmental restoration provides unique opportunities for
monitoring the effectiveness of restoration measures relative to the
management of ecosystems.
To illustrate the scientific and institutional uncertainties in
ecosystem management, a case study involving ecological restoration for
cumulative effects on the sockeye salmon will be described. The location
is in the Columbia River Basin in the northwestern United States; the
Basin, which includes the Snake River, has federally owned hydroelectric
dams operated and maintained by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and the
Bureau of Reclamation of the U.S. Department of the Interior. The
Bonnevilie Power Administration is responsible for transmitting and
marketing the hydroelectric power generated by these dams. The Corps has
eight dams on the lower Columbia and Snake Rivers which serve as a major
source of hydroelectric power and also provide flood control, navigation,
recreation, irrigation, municipal and industrial water supply, and fish
and wildlife benefits. However, the dams impede juvenile and adult fish
migrations to and from the ocean (U.S. General Accounting Office, 1998).
In 1991, the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) listed the
Snake River sockeye salmon as an endangered species, and in 1992, the
Snake River spring/summer and fall Chinook salmon were listed as
threatened. Biological opinions were then issued by the NMFS regarding
operation of the hydropower system. Included in the opinions were
mitigation actions for the Corps' eight dams. Examples of immediate and
intermediate mitigation actions included (U.S. General Accounting Office,
1998): (1) augmenting river flows to help juvenile salmon migrate
downstream, thus requiring releases of water from upstream storage
reservoirs during the spring and summer juvenile salmon migration; (2)
spilling river flows at the dams rather than passing them through
hydropower turbines where juvenile salmon experience higher mortality
rates; (3) collecting juvenile salmon at certain dams and transporting
them downstream by barge or truck, past remaining dams, where they are
released back into the Columbia River; (4) developing a gas abatement
program, including appropriate structural modifications, to reduce gas
super saturation; (5) designing and constructing facilities at John Day and
Bonneville Dams to improve sampling and monitoring of juvenile salmon as
they migrate past these dams; and (6) relocating the outfall structure
from which juvenile salmon exit the bypass facility at Bonneville Dam to
reduce mortality caused by predator fish.
In response to the NMFS' biological opinion, the Corps has worked
cooperatively with all interested parties, including federal and state
agencies and Native American tribes, in implementing its fish mitigation
action*. The cooperative efforts have been facilitated via a Regional
Forum of stakeholders who review and evaluate specific mitigation
proposals and annual programs.
Through October, 1997, the Corps had initiated 47 of the 58
mitigation actions contained in the overall program (U.S. General
Accounting Office, 1998). A total of 28 of the 47 actions have been, or
are expected to be, completed on time and within budget. However, 19
larger actions (8 studies and 11 projects) have been delayed, or have
encountered cost increases, or both. Several scientific and institutional
12-17
-------
factors have caused the delays or cost increases. Examples include (U.S.
General Accounting Office, 1998): (1) changes in fish mitigation
priorities; (2) effects of adverse weather on project implementation; (3)
contractors' performance problems;~ (4) revisions in the scope of projects;
and (5) bid protests.
In summary, this case study illustrates that both scientific and
institutional uncertainties can influence ecological restoration
(ecosystem management) efforts conducted in response to cumulative
effects. Scientific information is basic to designating species as
endangered or threatened. Further, such information needs to be used in
identifying and designing mitigation measures. Institutional problems can
arise from conflicting objectives on the part of multiple stakeholders,
needs to satisfy a variety of regulatory requirements and related permits,
and inadequate funding to accomplish all restoration measures. Further,
monitoring of the effectiveness of the measures should be done in an on-
going manner, with the results used for adaptive management of the
mitigation program.
Finally, seven examples of ecosystem management partnerships and
their work to date to mitigate cumulative effects are available
(Interagency Ecosystem Management Task Force, 1996). The examples
include: (1) Anacostia River watershed— state and local agencies are
restoring components of this system of marshes, rivers, and forests in
urban environments; (2) Coastal Louisiana — a federal task force and the
state of Louisiana are restoring wetlands to reverse the trend of losses;
(3) Great Lakes basin — local communities joined with governmental
agencies to reverse water pollution and aquatic habitat degradation; (4)
Pacific Northwest forests — an interagency effort is focused on
protecting both forest ecosystems and the region's economic health; (5)
Prince William Sound — a state/federal trustee council is restoring the
ecosystem following the Exxon Valdez oil spill; (6) South Florida — a
federal task force is working to restore habitat in the Everglades; and
(7) Southern Appalachians — the Man and Biosphere program is working with
local cities and towns to restore habitats.
Ecosystem Management — Illustrations from the U.S. Army
The U.S. Army manages hundreds of thousands of acres of U.S. lands
in conjunction with multiple projects and activities associated with
military training and with the provision of recreational opportunities at
civil works project sites. Military bases and civil works projects are
located throughout the different ecoregions (ecosystems) of the U.S. Due
to the extensive lands associated with specific Army bases, and the fact
that adjacent land use pressures may be excessive, military installations
may be likened to "islands of refuge* for numerous wildlife species. In
addition, military training lands are typically subject to a wide variety
of activities, with these activities creating undesirable cumulative
effects which differ in their nature and extent. Examples of military
training activities which may occur either singly or in combination at
given installations include: (1) conduction of military training
exercises; (2) firing of artillery and missiles; and (3) training to
operate military vehicles such as tanks.
Even though land usage may be extensive at military and civil works
facilities, the majority of the lands are used only periodically, if at
all. Nonusage areas could include buffer zones between the facilities and
adjacent private land uses, or between specific facility activities. In
addition, the U.S. Army is still responsible for the management of land at
many abandoned bases while land is still government.owned. Therefore, the
opportunity exists for the U.S. Army to develop and implement effective
12-18
-------
Table 12.7: Topical Outline for an Integrated Natural Resources Management
Plan for a U.S. Army Installation (after Williamson, 1997)
• Executive Summary
• Chapter 1 — Goals and Policies
1.1 Goals
1.2 Policies
1.3 Monitoring Progress (annual basis)
• Chapter 2 — Location and Acreage
2.1 Location
2.2 Acreage and Acquisition
2.3 Installation History
2.4 Neighbors
2.5 Satellite Installations
• Chapter 3 — Military Mission
3.1 Overview
3.2 Natural Resources Needed to Support the Military Mission
3.3 Effects of the Military Mission on Natural Resources
3.4 Effects of Natural Resources or their Management on the
Mission
3.5 Future Military Mission Impacts on Natural Resources
• Chapter 4 — Facilities
4.1 Overview
4.2 Transportation System
4.3 Water Supply
4.4 Projected Changes in Facilities
• Chapter 5 — Responsible and Interested Parties
5.1 Installation Organizations
5.2 Other Defense Organizations
5.3 Other Federal Agencies
5.4 State Agencies
5.5 Universities
5.6 Contractors
5.7 Other Interested Parties
5.8 Signatory Agencies
• Chapter 6 — Natural Resources and Climate
6.1 Setting
6.2 Topography
6.3 Geology
6.4 Climate
6.5 Petroleum and Minerals
6.6 Soils
6.7 Water Resources
6.8 Flora
6.9 Fauna
6.10 Threatened and Endangered Species
12-21
-------
Table 12,7 (continued):
• Chapter 7 — Land Use and Management Units
7.1 Land Uses
7.2 Management Units
• Chapter 8 — Natural Resources Management
8.1 Objectives
8.2 Forest Management
8.3 Agricultural/Grazing Outleases
B.4 Habitat Management
8.5 Came Harvest Management
8.6 Rare, Threatened, or Endangered Species Management
8.7 Furbearer Management
8.8 Other Nongame Species Management
8.9 Transplants and Stocks
8.10 Wetlands Management
8.11 Water Quality Management
8.12 Land Rehabilitation and Maintenance
8.13 Soil Resources Management
8.14 Cantonment Area Management
8.15 Pest Management
8.16 Fire Management
8.17 Special Interest Area Protection
8.18 Training Requirements Integration
• Chapter 9 — Inventorying and Monitoring
9.1 Objectives
9.2 General
9.3 Flora Inventory and Monitoring
9.4 Fauna Inventory and Monitoring
9.5 Water Quality Monitoring
9.6 Soil Resources Inventory and Monitoring
9.7 Data Storage, Retrieval, and Analysis
9.8 Five Year Plans
• Chapter 10 — Research and Special Projects
10.1 Objectives
10.2 Research Mechanisms
10.3 Planned Research/Special Projects
• Chapter 11 — Enforcement
11.1 Objectives
11.2 History and Authority
11.3 Jurisdiction
11.4 Enforcement Activities
11.5 Training
• Chapter 12 — Environmental Awareness
12.1 Objectives
12.2 Military Personnel Awareness
12.3 Public Awareness
12-22
-------
Table 12.7 (continued):
• Chapter 13 — Outdoor Recreation
13.1 Objectives
13.2 Military Mission Considerations
13.3 Public Access
13.4 Hunting, Fishing, and Trapping Programs
13.5 Other Natural Resources Oriented Outdoor Recreation
13.6 Recreation and Ecosystem Management
13.7 Safety and Security
• Chapter 14 — Cultural Resources Protection
14.1 Objectives
14.2 Cultural and Historic Resources
14.3 Natural Resources Management Implications
• Chapter 15 — National Environmental Policy Act
15.1 Objectives
15.2 NEPA Responsibilities and Implementation
15.3 NEPA and Natural Resources Management
• Chapter 16 — Biopolitical Issue Resolution
• Chapter 17 — Implementation
17.1 Organization, Roles, and Responsibilities
17.2 Manpower
17.3 Project/Programs Priorities
17.4 Implementation Funding Options
17.5 Command Support
• References
• Persons Contacted
• Appendices (as appropriate)
12-23
-------
(4) Adjustment — choosing strategies for modifying, avoiding,
accepting, or otherwise dealing with the ecological risk
profile of proposed actions or likely natural events and their
cumulative effects; such choices typically involve comparing
risk adjustment benefits and costs of various strategies and
policy instruments and making difficult tradeoffs among risks
and costs;
(5) Implementation —- interpreting the strategy mix in practical
standards, guidelines, and incentive systems; strategies can
be implemented through modifications in the proposed actions,
mitigations for particular cumulative ecological risks, or
planned responses under a planned adaptive monitoring program;
(6) Monitoring — tracking the effectiveness of the ecological
risk adjustment strategies by measuring exposure pathways and
risk endpoints with the focus on "signal" events that could
trigger adaptive responses; and
(7) Risk communication — translating the results of one phase to
another, between ecosystem managers, scientists, policy
makers, and the public; recent approaches emphasize multi-way
communication with an emphasis on understanding the mental
models and belief systems which people use for ecological risk
assessment. Risk communication involving clarity,
completeness, accuracy, and compatibility with information
processing styles needs to be built into every phase.
SUMMARY
Cumulative effects issues related to biodiversity and ecosystem
management have recently come to the forefront in environmental management
and project or program decision-making. These issues are broader in space
and time than the traditional biological (ecological) issues included in
the EIA process focused on the direct and indirect effects of a single
project. As such, they are probably more important for inclusion in SEAs
than project-level El As, although unique requirements should be considered
for each proposed project. As experience is gained, improvements can be
expected regarding the incorporation of biodiversity and ecosystem
management within the EIA process, including attention to mitigation
opportunities for undesirable cumulative effects.
SELECTED REFERENCES
Bunpapong, S., "Environmental Impact Assessment and Biodiversity:
Thailand's Experience,* Section 6.4 in Widening Perspectives on
Biodiversity. Krattiger, A.F., McNeely, J.A., Lesser, H.H., Miller, K.R.,
St. Hill, Y., and Senanayake, R., editors, IUCN - The World Conservation
Union, Gland, Switzerland, and the International Academy of the
Environment, Geneva, Switzerland, 1994, pp. 339-346.
Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency, "A Guide on Biodiversity and
Environmental Assessment," April, 1996, Hull, Quebec, Canada.
Canter, L.W., Environmenta1 Impact Assessment. Second Edition, McGraw-Hill
Book Company, Inc., New York, New York, 1996, pp. 56-101, and 343-434.
12-24
-------
Council*Jt-Ji*on ~JBnvirenmewtalrie;' Quality, "Incorporating Biodiversity
Considerations' into Environmental Impact Analysis Under the National
Environmental Policy Act," January, 1993, Washington, D.C.
Dahuri, R., "Incorporating Biodiversity Objectives and Criteria into
Environmental Impact Assessment Laws and Mechanisms in Indonesia," Section
6.1 in Widening Perspectives on Biodiversity. Krattiger, A.F., McNeely,
J.A., Lesser, W.H., Miller, K.R., St. Hill, Y., and Senanayake, R.,
editors, IUCN - The World Conservation Union, Gland, Switzerland, and the
International Academy of the Environment, Geneva, Switzerland, 1994, pp.
319-326.
Doran, L., Reveret, J.P., Ghanime, L., and Caldwell, P., "The Challenge of
Biodiversity and the Case for Environmental Assessment: A Canadian
Position," Abstracts Volume of the 18th Annual Meeting of the
International Association for Impact Assessment, Christchurch, New
Zealand, April 19-24, 1998, p. 4.7.
Interagency Ecosystem Management Task Force, "Ecosystem Approach: Healthy
Ecosystems and Sustainable Economics — Vol. 3 — Case Studies," March,
1996, Washington, D.C.
Jahn, L.R., Cook, C.W., and Hughes, J.D., "An Evaluation of U.S. Army
Natural Resource Management Programs on Selected Military Installations
and Civil Works Projects," October, 1984, Report to Secretary of the Army,
Washington, D.C.
Jones, K.B., Riitters, K.H., Wickham, J.D., Tankersley, R.D., O'Neill,
R.V., Chaloud, D.J., Smith, E.R., and Neale, A.C., "An Ecological
Assessment of the United States Mid-Atlantic Region: A Landscape Atlas,"
EPA/600/R-97-130, November, 1997, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
Washington, D.C.
Keiter, R.B., and Adler, R.W., "NEPA and Ecological Management: An
Analysis with Reference to Military Base Lands," Ch. 17 in Environmental
Methods Review; Retooling Impact Assessment for the New Century, Porter,
A.L., and Fittipaldi, J.J., editors, U.S. Army Environmental Policy
Institute, Atlanta, Georgia, and International Association for Impact
Assessment, Fargo, North Dakota, 1998, pp. 144-153.
Krattiger, A.F., McNeely, J.A., Lesser, W.H., Miller, K.R., St. Hill, Y.,
and Senanayake, R., editors. Widening Perspectives on Biodiversity. IUCN -
The World Conservation Union, Gland, Switzerland, and the International
Academy of the Environment, Geneva, Switzerland, 1994.
Leong, Y.K., "Conservation of Biodiversity and the Environmental Impact
Assessment Process in Malaysia,* Section 6.2 in Widening Peraneetives en
Biodiversity. Krattiger, A.F., McNeely, J.A., Lesser, W.H., Miller, K.R.,
St. Hill, Y., and Senanayake, R., editors, IUCN - The World Conservation
Union, Gland, Switzerland, and the International Academy of the
Environment, Geneva, Switzerland, 1994, pp. 327-338.
McDonald, L.A., and Martin, W.E., "Ecosystem Management and Mine
Permitting on Public Lands," BUMINES-OFR-78-95, April, 1995, Colorado
School of Mines, Golden, Colorado.
Scodari, P.F., Bohlen, C.C., and Srivastava, A., "Prototype Information
Tree for Environmental Restoration Plan Formulation and Cost Estimation,"
IWR Report 95-R-3, March, 1995, Institute for Water Resources, U.S. Army
Corps of Engineers, Alexandria, Virginia.
12-25
-------
Sommers, W.T., and Lackey, R.G., "Ecosystem Management — Chapter 2,"
EPA/600/A-97/087, 1997, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, National
Health and Environmental Effects Research Laboratory, Corvallis, Oregon.
Spellerberg, I., "Assessing Impacts on Biological Diversity: Problems of
Lack of Guidelines, Definitions, and Standards," Abstracts volume of the
18th Annual Meeting of the International Association for Impact
Assessment, Christchurch, New Zealand, April 19-24, 1998, p. 124.
Stakhiv, E.Z., "Return to the Future: Watershed Planning — the Quest for
a New Paradigm," Proceedings of Watershed '96 — A National Conference on
Watershed Management. June 8-12, 1996, Water Environment Federation,
Alexandria, Virginia, pp. 246-249.
Stone, Y., and Little, S., "Application of Impact Assessment to
Conservation of Biodiversity in NSW, Australia," paper presented at the
18th Annual Meeting of the International Association for Impact
Assessment, Christchurch, New Zealand, April 19-24, 1998.
United Nations Environmental Program, "EIA — Issues, Trends, and
Practice," 1996, Nairobi, Kenya, pp. 73-74.
U.S. General Accounting Office, "Ecosystem Management — Additional
Actions Needed to Adequately Test a Promising Approach," GAO/RCED-94-111,
August 1994a, Washington, D.C., pp. 3-9.
U.S. General Accounting Office, "Natural Resources — Defense and Interior
Can Better Manage Land Withdrawn for Military Use," GAO/NSIAD-94-87, April
1994b, Washington, D.C., pp. 1-16.
U.S. General Accounting Office, "Water Resources — Corps of Engineers'
Actions to Assist Salmon in the Columbia River Basin," GAO/RCED-98-100,
April, 1998, Washington, D.C., pp. 2-7.
Williamson, J.E., editor, "Guidelines to Prepare Integrated Natural
Resources Management Plans for Army Installations and Activities," SFIM-
AEC-EQ-TR-97019, April, 1997, U.S. Army Environmental Center, Aberdeen
Proving Ground, Maryland.
Woodley, S., Francis, G., and Kay, J., Ecological Integrity and the
Management of Ecosystems. St. Lucie Press, Delray Beach, Florida, 1994.
World Bank, "Biodiversity and Environmental Assessment," Environmental
Assessment Sourcebook Update Number 20, October, 1997, Washington, D.C.
World Bank, "Mainstreaming Biodiversity in Development: A World Bank
Assistance Strategy for Implementing the Convention on Biological
Diversity," Paper No. 29, 1995, Environment Department, Washington, D.C.
12-26
-------
CHAPTER 13
COMPUTER-BASED TECHNOLOGIES FOR
INFORMATION PROCUREMENT AND COMMUNICATION
A key challenge in the environmental impact assessment (EIA) process
in general, and in cumulative effects assessment (CEA) specifically, is
keeping up with the "explosion of available information" in this computer
age. For example, computer-based searching of abstracts of published
literature related to EIA has been available for over 15 years. A second
generation of computer-based technology involving the Internet, e-mail,
and the World Wide Web can also be useful in the EIA process and for
cumulative effects studies. A third example involves usage of the growing
number of CD-ROMs (computer disk-read only memory)-and computer software
with EIA or CEA related information. This chapter highlights information
related to these three examples.
COMPUTER-BASED BIBLIOGRAPHIC SEARCHING AND DATA RETRIEVAL
A useful source of information for the EIA process and cumulative
effects considerations is represented by computerized bibliographic
retrieval systems. 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 (based
on identified key words or descriptor words). There are several
commercial companies (one example is Dialog) that provide access to
traditional systems such as the National Technical Information Service
(NTIS), Air Pollution Technical Information Center (APTIC), Biosis
Previews, Water Resources Abstracts, Compendex, Pollution Abstracts,
Agricola, Smithsonian Scientific Information Exchange (SSIE), and
Enviroline. In searching any of the systems it is necessary to use key
words from that data base or the results will not include all available
information. Once the topic to be searched is properly defined, it is
easy to query that selected data base on the publications currently
available in the subject area.
Usage of computerized bibliographic retrieval systems for
identifying relevant information is a valuable initial step in the
conduction of an environmental impact study incorporating CEA. The
general purpose is to provide the study team with a sense of the currently
available literature on the technical aspects of the project. Searches
can also be useful in identifying potential direct, indirect, and
cumulative impacts, technical methodologies for predicting impacts, and
potential mitigation measures. Abstracts or citations for identified
references can be procured and, through the elimination of nonrelevant
items, the total of pertinent references can be reduced to a manageable
number for detailed review.
Bibliographic searching can also be useful in identifying key
professionals, professional societies, universities, and research
institutes related to a specific impact study or cumulative effects
concerns. Key professionals can be identified via their authorship of
relevant publications. Useful information can often be obtained from
professional societies associated with substantive areas such as
engineering, geology, planning, biology, and archaeology. Contacts with
these professional societies can also facilitate the identification of key
13-1
-------
individuals and lead to pertinent reports and other studies. Special
interest groups such as bird societies, nature conservation clubs, and
commercial development organizations may also provide relevant information
for specific studies.
A large number of military facility reports on environmental impact
studies and related topics, including cumulative effects, are maintained
at the Defense Technical Information Center (DTIC) . Computer- searching by
keywords can be used to identify topical reports which can be purchased
for a reasonable fee. Information on the DTIC can be obtained by
contacting the Eefense Technical Information Center, 8725 John J. Kingman
Road, Suite 0944, Fort Belvoir, VA 22060-6128 USA; telephone: 703-767-
9194.
Information for the EIA process and cumulative effects studies can
also be procured from local universities and research institutes as well
as regional or national research organizations focused on particular
issues or substantive areas. Local universities can provide potentially
relevant unpublished studies, theses and dissertations, and published
reports on research projects. Research institutes can also provide
information associated with both unpublished work and published reports.
The identification of pertinent universities and research institutes can
be obtained via direct authorship of relevant publications, or via
specific individual authors affiliated with universities or research
institutes .
A large amount of environmental data can be found in computerized
information storage and retrieval systems (Canter, 1996) . Examples from
the United States include air quality data (U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency Storage and Retrieval of Aerometric Data System — SAROAD) ,
meteorological data (U.S. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
Climatic Center) , water quality data (U. S . Environmental Protection Agency
Storage and Retrieval of Hater Quality Data System — STORED , water
quality and quantity data (U.S. Geological Survey National Water Data
Exchange System — NAHDEX, and U.S. Geological Survey National Water Data
Storage and Retrieval System -- WATSTORE) , terrestrial and aquatic
biological data (U.S. Forest Service Wildlife and Fish Assessment System
— WAFA) , threatened or endangered species (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
Endangered Species Information System — ESIS) , and socioeconomic data
(U.S. Bureau of Census) . Numerous additional examples can be identified
through the World Wide Web.
Another potentially valuable source of information in many studies
is newspaper reports relating to plans, policies, and/or projects. Review
of this historical record of newspaper accounts in a potential project
area can be a useful source of background information, even if it is not
directly used in the environmental impact study. Several newspaper data
bases are available for computer searching. Finally, there are a number
of specialized computer systems and software which are being developed;
examples include those oriented to land usage and geographical areas, and
required permits from local, state, and federal agencies. Many pertinent
systems and software can be identified via the World Wide Web.
USE OF
The Internet is a worldwide computer network which is comprised of
multiple networks connected by the international phone system (Okotie,
199S) . This worldwide system of computer networks had its origin for
military purposes in 1969 (Eide, 1998) . Currently, the Internet provides
the opportunity for communicating on millions of topics by millions of
persons. The most widely used part of the Internet for information
13-2
-------
gathering and dissemination is the World Hide Web (or simply, the Web).
The number of Internet users is expanding at an unbelievable rate. in
1997, it was estimated that users worldwide exceeded 100 million, and by
the year 2000, there may be over 400 million users (Anonymous, 1997) .
The Internet can be used for sending/receiving electronic mail (e-
mail); subscribing to specific interest lists; procuring information on a
variety of EIA or CEA-related policy, regulatory, and technical issues,-
and identifying topical area experts. Job searching can be done on the
Internet (Petty, 1997a). In addition, Okotie (1995) suggested that public
participation programs related to EIA could be facilitated by the
Internet. Summary information on the proposed project could be provided
by the proponent, and interested individuals and/or groups could provide
feedback. Further, complete EIA documents such as EAs (environmental
assessments) and/or EISs (environmental impact statements) could be made
available via the Web. Table 13.1 lists several additional specific
examples of uses of the Internet in the EIA process.
The most used service on the Internet is electronic mail, referred
to as e-mail (Anonymous, 1997; and Eide, 1998) . Information dissemination
via e-mail attachments thereto is also becoming commonplace. For example,
the periodic newsletter (6 to 10 pages in length) of the Association of
Environmental Engineering Professors (AEEP) is sent to all members via
their e-mail addresses.
Topical discussion groups related to EIA or CEA can also use the
Internet. Examples of listserver discussion groups available through the
International Association for Impact Assessment (IAIA) include:
(1) IAIA_SIA which deals with social impact assessment;
(2) IAXA_KUROPK which deals with impact assessment issues in
Europe;
(3) IAIA_URBA» which deals with urban environmental issues; and
(4) IAIA_PROFDBV which is about professional development issues in
EIA and also related to IAIA itself.
Basic Reference Materials
Table 13.2 lists seven books and one report related to
environmentally focused uses of the Internet or to fundamental information
about the Internet. Three books related to Internet usage are available
(Schupp, 1995; Briggs-Erickson and Murphy, 1997; and Katz and Thornton,
1997). All three describe the Internet concept and include fundamental
information on its usage. The original book by Schupp (199S) is organized
into five chapters. The first chapter contains a compilation of over 100
environmentally related on-line discussion groups and information
dissemination services. Chapter 1 also includes mailing lists which can
be used to rapidly find U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) news
releases, Federal Register documents, and exchange information on
regulatory compliance. Environmentally related Usenet news groups
(similar in many respects to mailing lists) are discussed in Chapter 2.
Chapter 3 describes ten additional sources of environmental information
that Internet users can access by e-mail. Chapter 4 deals with electronic
•journals and newsletters which address a wide range of scientific,
technical, and policy issues related to the environment. The final
chapter (Chapter 5) documents bulletin board systems (BBSs) that offer
users access to an assortment of environmentally related databases, text
files, and conferences. Examples of BBSs described in Chapter 5 are
13-3
-------
Table 13.1: Examples of Uses of the Internet in the EIA Process
Use of e-mail to send project- description and related
environmental information to individuals/agencies/organizations
and seek their input in the scoping process.
Use of e-mail to individuals/agencies/organizations for purposes
of announcing scoping-related meetings.
Facilitation of input from discussion groups (listservers) on
topical issues.
Identification of subject matter experts who could provide
special input or review of impact study documents.
Identification of consulting firms and their capabilities for
conducting impact studies in general, or studies on specific
types of projects or topical issues.
Identification of relevant technical reports from various
agencies, companies, or organizations related to impact studies
for the type of project of interest.
Identification of relevant existing or proposed laws or
regulations related to environmental issues or the type of
project of interest.
Identification of key journal articles related to the impacts of
concern or the type of project of interest.
Identification of case studies on similar types of projects
(analogs).
Downloading of available data (historical and current) for
describing the physical/chemical, biological, cultural, and
socioeconomic components of the affected environment.
Downloading of models (or related software) which can be used
for predicting the impacts of the type of project of interest.
Use of e-mail to post public notices about the availability of
an environmental assessment (EA) or environmental impact
statement (EIS) on the proposed project, plan, program, or
policy; use of agency Web site to post similar information.
Placement of draft EA, EIS, or summaries thereof, on the agency
Web site and request comments on the document.
Identification of EIA training courses.
Placement of consultant company information, experience, and
services on the company Web site; the company may attract EIA
business as a result.
13-4
-------
Table 13.2: Examples of Internet-related Information
TOPIC
COMMENTS
Environmental Guide to
the Internet (Briggs-
Erickson and Murphy,
1997)
Third edition of an earlier book by Schupp
(1995) focused on environmental,
ecological, and conservation Web sites.
Includes information on more than 200 e-
mail discussion groups, 35 newsgroups, 126
newsletters and electronic journals, and
523 Heb sites. Brief information is
included on each of these information
sources.
Recycling and Haste
Management Guide to the
Internet (Guttentag,
1997)
Book focused on the management of
nonhazardous solid wastes through recycling
or other methods such as waste reduction,
reuse, energy recovery or land disposal.
Includes information on relevant e-mail
discussion groups, newsgroups, and a large
number of Web sites.
Environmental
Management Tools on the
Internet (Katz and
Thornton, 1997)
Book on the use of the Internet for various
environmental management issues. See Table
16.5 for table of contents.
Chemical Guide to the
Internet (Lee, 1996)
A specialized book on chemical and chemical
engineering information useful in
identifying emission concerns and
environmental transport and fate issues.
GLEEN: Global Energy
and Environment Network
Proj ect--Internet
Energy and Environment
Sampler (RCG/Hagler,
Bailly and Co., Inc.,
1995)
Report emphasizing electronic sources of
information on energy and environment. Heb
sites and bulletin board systems (BBSs)
which are free are identified along with
fee-based or restricted information
sources. Brief descriptions of Heb sites
and BBSs are provided.
Safety and Health on
the Internet (Stuart,
1996)
Book focused on safety and health issues
within industry, including items related to
EIA.
Official Internet
Dictionary--A
Comprehensive Reference
for Professionals
(Bahorsky, 1998)
Fundamental book on the workings and
language of the Internet, including e-mail,
electronic mailing lists, and other
Internet functions.
Internet and the Law:
Legal Fundamentals for
the Internet User
(Kurz, 1996)
Book focused on basic principles related to
laws of copyright, trademark, trade secret,
patent, libel/defamation, and licensing.
These topics have arisen as the Internet
has experienced its phenomenal expansion.
13-5
-------
listed in Table 13.3 (after Schupp, 1995) . The Briggs-Erickson and Murphy
(1997) book represents a third edition of the 1995 book by Schupp.
Documentation of relevant BBSs is available. For example, a manual has
been prepared on the functions of. the air pollution control BBS named
RACT/BACT/LAER Clearinghouse (Steigerwald, 1997). The manual describes
how to connect, search, view, and retrieve information from this BBS.
The Katz and Thornton (1997) book summarizes regulatory chemical-
specific, water, land/soil, air, and hazardous waste information which can
be procured from the Internet for free. Information is also included on
several data bases which can be queried for a fee.
Specialized Internet books with relevance to the EIA process are
also being generated. For example, a chemical guide was published in May,
1996 (Lee, 1996) and a safety and health guide in December, 1996 (Stuart,
1996) . The Lee (1996) book is oriented to chemical and chemical
engineering information useful in identifying emission concerns and
environmental transport and fate issues. Chapter 1 contains descriptions
of 512 selected organizations and Chapter 2 addresses 541 World Wide web
resources by subject. Chapter 3 highlights 346 academic institutions.
Chapters 4 through 6 focus on 46 Internet discussion lists, 40 news
groups, and 43 gopher resources, respectively. The Stuart (1996) book can
be useful in addressing human health impacts within the EIA process. In
addition to fundamental Internet-related information, the book identifies
129 web and gopher sites, 61 mailing lists, and 13 news and discussion
groups.
In addition to more specialized books, there are numerous general
books available for "surfing the Net"; such "primer books" can be useful
to the beginner in tapping the vast sources of potentially relevant
information for the EIA process.
Finally, it is important to remember that the Internet and
everything on it is a "work in progress" (Schupp, 1995) . Material is
added, changed, or even deleted on a daily basis. Frequent topical
searching of the Internet can increase the user's confidence and enhance
the identification and procurement of relevant information for the EIA
process and cumulative effects studies.
Examples of Web Sites
From a communication and technical perspective. Web sites should be
visually appealing, have a logical layout, and contain information related
to scientific and policies issues on substantive topics (Strock, 1998).
This chapter section is primarily focused on examples of Web sites which
are either directly or indirectly related to the EIA process, including
CEA.
The Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) in the United States
activated a Web site called NEPANet in March, 1995 (httpr//ceq.eh.doe.gov/
nepa/nepanet.htm). NEPANet primarily contains information related to the
EIA process in the United States (Council on Environmental Quality, 1997).
NEPANet is maintained and updated by the U.S. Department of Energy
(Jessee, 1998). Table 13.4 displays the topical contents within NEPANet
as of June 10, 1998.
The U.S. Department of Energy activated its NEPA Web site in
October, 1993 (http://tis.eh.doe.gov/nepa/)-. Table 13.5 summarizes the
type of information available on the DOE NEPA Web site (Jessee, 1998).
13-6
-------
Table 13.3: Examples of Bulletin Board Systems Available Through Internet
(after Schupp, 1995)
EPA Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards
Technology Transfer Network
Aeromatic Information Retrieval System (AIRS)
Ambient Monitoring Technology Information Center (AMTIC)
BLIS (air pollution control technologies)
Clean Air Act Amendments (CAAA)
Clearinghouse for Inventories and Emission Factors (CHIEF)
COMPLiance Information (COMPLI)
Control Technology Center (CTC)
Emission Measurement Technical Information Center (EMTIC)
NATICH (national air toxics information clearinghouse)
New Source Review (NSR)
Office of Mobile Sources (OMS)
Office of Radiation and Indoor Air (ORIA)
Support Center for Regulatory Air Models (SCRAM)
FedWorld
The Superfund Early Bird Window
U.S. Bureau of Mines Bulletin Board Network (BOM-BBN)
Superfund Data and Information Bulletin Board (CLU-IN)
Pesticide Special Review and Reregistration Information
System (PSRRIS)
Wastewater Treatment Information Exchange (WTIE)
Offshore Oil and Gas Data Bulletin Board
Alternative Treatment Technology Information Center Bulletin Board
(ATTIC)
Drinking Water Information Processing Support System (DRIPSS)
Pesticide Information Network (PIN)
Nonpoint Source Program (NPS) Bulletin Board
Drinking Water Information Exchange (DWIE)
U.S. Federal Aviation Administration Office of Environment and Energy
BBS
RACT/BACT/LAER Clearinghouse
Cleanup Standards Outreach Bulletin Board System (CSOBBS)
Gulf Coast Pollution Information Bulletin Board (GULFLINE)
U.S. Department of Commerce Economic Bulletin Board
Government Printing Office BBS
13-7
-------
Table 13.4: Topical Contents of NEPANet as of June 10, 1996
NATIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY ACT-(NEPA)
• Full Text Statute (NEPA)
• Regulations for Implementing NEPA from CEQ and the Agencies
• Agency NEPA Web Sites
EPA's Office of Federal Activities
* Department of Energy NEPAWeb
* Department of Defense DENIX
' Department of the Interior Bureau of Land Management
* Air Force Center for Environmental Excellence
Federal Highway Administration - Region 3
* General Services Administration
" U.S. Geological Service Environmental Affairs Program
* Department of Agriculture
- USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service
- US Forest Service
• Guidance from CEQ
Scoping
* 40 Most Frequently Asked Questions
* Guidance Regarding the NEPA Regulations
' Pollution Prevention
CONSIDERING CUMULATIVE EFFECTS UNDER THE NATIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL
POLICY ACT (a report)
NEPA--A STUDY OF ITS EFFECTIVENESS AFTER 25 YEARS (a report)
CEQ ANNUAL REPORTS
• 1996 Annual Report of the CEQ (coming soon)
• 25 Anniversary Report of the CEQ (1994-95)
• 1993 Annual Report of the CEQ
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ANALYSIS
Where and How to File an EIS
EISs Available for Review
EIS Activity--Statistics
Digital NEPA Document—Department of Energy
Environmental Impact Analysis Data "Links.
Agency NEPA Points of Contact
ENVIROTEXT RETRIEVAL SYSTEM
• EnviroText is an on-line searchable library that provides easy
access to environment, safety, and health federal and state
statutes and regulations, as well as Indian Tribal Codes and
Treaties, and international agreements.
ENVIRONMENTAL ORGANIZATIONS
• National Association of Environmental Professionals (NAEP)
• International Association for Impact Assessment (IAIA)
13-8
-------
Table 13.4: (continued)
INTERNATIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENTS (ElA)
Antarctica
Australia
Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency
Georeferenced Population Data Sets of Mexico
International Association for Impact Assessment (IAIA)
Japan's National Institute for Environmental Studies
Land Information New Zealand (LINZ)
NEPA BIBLIOGRAPHIC INFORMATION
• NEPA Case Law Review
• NEPA Bibliography
NEPA TRAINING INFORMATION
• CEQ Compendium of NEPA Training
• Duke University NEPA Courses
• USDA Graduate School (available soon)
13-9
-------
Table 13.5: Information Available on DOE NEPA Web Site (Jessee, 1998)
The DOE NEPA Web site is organized into five functional modules that
enable users to easily navigate their own path to NEPA information.
(1) DOE NEPA Announcements: Quick-reference announcements of DOE
NEPA events, including public involvement opportunities and
links to Federal Register notices.
(2) DOE NEPA Analyses: Full-text and retrieval of EISs,
environmental assessments (EAs), notices of intent, records of
decision, and mitigation action plans, links to other agency
NEPA documents; a master list of all DOE EISs.
(3} NEPA Links: Quick access to Web sites of CEQ's NEPAnet, EPA's
Office of Federal Activities, and other agency and international
NEPA-related Web sites. A link to EnviroText provides full
texts of federal environmental laws and regulations. Executive
Orders, and Native American Tribal codes.
(4) DOE NEPA Tools: DOE NEPA Order and Regulations, DOE NEPA
guidance, including compliance and contracting reform guidance,
document preparation, and Web publishing standards; the DOE NEPA
stakeholder directory; and links to law references and the U.S.
Library of Congress.
(5) DOE NEPA Process Information: NEPA implementation reports and
milestone data-webs: a listing of EAs and EISs in preparation,
fact sheets on DOE weapons complex NEPA reviews, DOE Annual
Planning Summaries, and Lessons Learned Quarterly Reports. _^
13-10
-------
"Hotlinks" are being increasingly used to establish linkages between
Web sites. A hotlink refers to where the user "clicks" on the highlighted
text and is taken from the Web site of origin to another Web site. To
illustrate, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has almost 5000
web pages with links to U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) sites, and USGS has
almost 3000 links to EPA (Lanfear and Klima, 199B). Extensive linkages
exist between EPA's "Surf Your Watershed" site (http://www.epa.gov/surf/)
and the USGS's "Water Resources of the United States" site
(http://water.usgs.gov/). The USGS site includes historical streamflow
data, real-time water quantity and quality data, water-use data, pertinent
reports, and software for hydrologic analysis and modeling. These
watershed and water-related sites can be useful in addressing cumulative
effects on water resources.
Table 13.6 identifies several examples of Web sites related to the
EIA process, with still additional Web site addresses for agencies and
organizations contained in Table 13.7 (Davis, 1998).
Miscellaneous examples of Web sites which can be useful in the EIA
process and for CEA include:
(1) air dispersion modeling software (www.beeline-software.com)
(2) decision process guidebook of the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation
(www.usbr.gov/Decision-Process/execsum.htm)
(3) information on the USGS's Instream Flow incremental
Methodology (IFIM) for aquatic impact assessment, as well as
related training courses, IFIM software, and decision support
systems (http://www.mesc.nbs.gov/rsm)
(4) National Marine Fisheries Service
(http://kingfish. ssp.nmfs.gov/)
(5) Canadian Department of Fisheries and Oceans
(http://www.ncr.dfo.ca/)
(6) water resources software from the U.S. Geological Survey
(http://water.usgs.gov/software/)
(7) new publications of the U.S. Geological Survey
(http://pubs.usgs.gov/publications/)
(8) water resources reports from the U.S. Geological Survey
(http: //water .usgs .gov/public/wrd012 .html)
(9) digital data sets of aquifer characteristics from the U.S.
Geological Survey; for example, for Oklahoma data
(http: / /www. ok. cr. usgs. gov/gis /aquifers / index. html)
(Note: these data sets are also available on diskette.)
(10) in February. 1998, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
established the National Environmental Publication Information
(NEPI) site which contains over 6,000 EPA publications; these
publications can be searched and viewed (http://www.epa.gov/
cincl/)
(11) jobs page of the National Ground Water Association
(www.ngwa.org)
(12) Water Science and Technology Board of the National Academy of
Science/National Research Council (http: //www_2.nas. edu/wstb)
13-11
-------
Table 13.6: Examples of Web Sites (agencies, data bases, and
organizations) Related Directly or Indirectly to EIA and/or
CEA (compiled from International Association for Impact
Assessment, 1997; Lohani, et al., 1997; National Association
of Environmental Professionals, 1996 and 1998; and individual
contacts)
ACCESS EPA: An Environmental Directory
(http://earthl.epa.gov/Access/)
This is a directory of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)
and other public sector environmental information resources. Its
many resources include information centers, publications, library
resources, data systems, models, bulletin board systems,
clearinghouses, CD-ROMs, and software applications. The user can
browse through an extensive list of environmental topics. (A hard
copy of the directory is available--see reference to U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, 1996.)
Albert's Virtual Homepage (http://vrww.helsinki.fi/-sigurdss)
This homepage contains many links to EIA, environmental issues, and
environmental auditing and management sites.
Australian BIA Network (http://www.erin.gov.au/net/eianet.html)
The Australian EIA Network contains many resources. There is
information regarding legislation and agreements, case studies,
contacts for practitioners in the commonwealth and state/territory
governments, information about EIA in Australia, EIA training
resources, and links to other environmental servers.
Bibliography of Biodiversity Assessment Methodologies
(http: / /www. erin. gov. au/1ife/general_info/biodiv_assess_intro. html)
Updated monthly, this Web site provides a large bibliography of
assessment methodologies. A search for "impact assessment" provides
many helpful resources.
inadian Environmental Assessment Agency (CEAA)
(http://www.ceaa.gc.ca/)
Information on the CEAA is provided on the homepage. There is a
public registry of information, links to other environmental
assessment sites, and study reports of environmental assessment
effectiveness.
Directory of Environmental Resources on the Internet
(http: / /www. envirosw. com/)
This site contains an extensive number of listings and links to
various environmental resources on the Internet such as seminars,
courses, education resources such as libraries and reports,
consultants and services, links to a handful of environmental sites,
and links to legislative information.
Barthvision (http://www.earthvision.net)
Earth Vision is an information network that allows environmental
stakeholders at all levels to exchange timely information affecting
the global community in the areas of sustainable development, policy
and advocacy, education, business and technology, and recreation.
13-12
-------
Table 13.6: (continued)
3S (Earth'* Environmental Expert*) Databaae of Environmental Experts
(ht tp: / /www. nhbs. co. uk/3e/index. html)
This database consists of individual experts and specialists in a
wide range of professions such as acoustics, biology, chemistry,
climate, conservation, ecology, engineering, environment, hazard and
risk, restoration, toxicology, water, wildlife, etc. The database
may be searched free of charge.
Ecological Riak Analysis: Tools and Applications
(http: / /www. hsrd. ornl. gov/ecorisk/ecorisk. html)
Information, provided by Oak Ridge National Laboratory, is included
which can be used to conduct ecological screening and baseline risk
assessments. The site includes a database of benchmarks for aquatic
organisms, wildlife, and sediments; guidance documents for performing
environmental assessments; and links to other assessment sites.
Bnvirolink (http://envirolink.org/)
This site provides a compilation of comprehensive, up-to-date
environmental resources available through the Web. it has links to
sites covering just about any topic related to the environmental
field, including risk assessment.
Environmental Data Interactive Exchange (http://www.edie.net)
This Web site includes a global marketplace section, a searchable
reference library, weekly news summaries, networking opportunities,
and a technology database that enables users to compare the latest
equipment and services available in the environment and water
sectors.
Environmental Route Net (http://www.csa.com/routenet)
Environmental Route Net provides access to hundreds of specialized
Internet sites by providing users with a few menu-driven
instructions. The site contains links to the latest environmental
news, environmental regulations and legislation, USA and
international environmental patents and other reference information.
Environmental Treaties and Resource Indicators
(http://sedac.ciesin.org/entri/)
This service is an on-line tool that integrates data about the
content and status of international environmental treaties with data
about national resource indicators, i.e., national-scale
socioeconomic, environmental, and earth science variables (including
data derived from remote sensing). The environmental treaties and
national resource indicators included cover nine global environmental
issues: climate change, ozone depletion, air pollution,
desertification and drought, conservation of biological diversity,
deforestation, oceans and their living resources, trade and the
environment, and population.
Environmental World Wide Web Server*
(http: //iridium.nttc. edu/env/env_links .html)
This is an alphabetical listing of sites to connect to various
environmental information sources. It is divided by government,
corporate, military, universities, and others.
13-13
-------
Table 13.6: (continued)
Envirosense (http: //es. inel. gov/ )--.
This Web site is the EPA's pollution prevention forum for all levels
of government, researchers, industry, and public interest groups.
Its goal is to become a single repository for pollution prevention
and the related issues of compliance assurance, enforcement
information, technological information, databases, etc.
Environmental Software Services (BSS) GmbH, Austria
(http://www.ess.co.at/)
This small Austrian research company Web site contains information on
the customized environmental information and decision-support systems
that it designs, develops, and deploys. The list of environmental
sites and gophers provided are quite comprehensive, and there is
information about the projects and research done for the proposals.
SPA's Air Pollution Database -- AIRS
(http://www.epa.gov/disc/airs/airs.html)
This is a repository of resources relevant to airborne pollution in
various countries. Among the extensive list of resources is data
from monitoring systems, a list of air pollution point sources,
reference data, illustrative maps and charts, and a technology
transfer network.
SSSA Software, Ltd. (http://www.essa.com)
This site contains information regarding ESSA's EIA-support software
applications. They have developed the world's first environmental
assessment screening expert system called calyx. Their PC-based
programs allow users to preview potential environmental impacts
before they happen.
GBKZ (http://www.gemi.org)
The Global Environmental Management Initiative's homepage provides a
new tool for businesses seeking to achieve environmental health and
safety excellence. The GEMI homepage is organized into five main
areas; information about GEMI, members, publications, what's new, and
the 1996 conference.
Institute for Environmental Assessment (IEA)
(http://www.green channel.com/iea)
IEA is a professional organization in the United Kingdom established
to promote best practice standards in environmental assessment and
auditing. Its independence is maintained by a growing membership
drawn from environmental consultancies, industry, local authorities,
and educational establishments.
Intercept, Ltd. (http://www.intercept.co.uk)
This Web site contains information on over 500,000 books and reports
organized by author and subject, with many subjects related to the
EIA process. To serve as an illustration, many reports from the
United Nations Environment Program can be found at this site.
International Association for I&pact Assessment (IAIA)
(http://IAZA.ext.NoDak.edu/IAIA/)
This site contains information regarding IAIA, as well as direct
links to professional Internet sites (such as the Australian EIA
Network, International Rivers Network, Econet, etc.), the Impact
Assessment Journal, and the IAIA Newsletter. Its resources section
covers ten areas in impact assessment, including risk assessment,
social impact assessment, policy assessment, and training.
-------
Table 13.6: (continued)
International Institute for Environment and Development
(http: //www. oneworld.org/iied/resource/)
The Directory of Impact Assessment Guidelines contains bibliographies
and summaries of many different resources and provides information as
to how to obtain the resources. There is also an International
Environmental and Natural Resource Assessment Information Service
(Interaise) which contains national conservation strategies and
sustainable development strategies.
International Institute for Sustainable Development (USD)
(http://iisdl.iisd.ca/)
The IISD homepage contains many documents regarding sustainable
development, including ISO14000 information. There is a search
function with the ability to choose a specific country and an EIA
database.
ISO 14000 (http://www.gasweb.org/gasweb/ias/isol4000.htm)
International Approval Services has established a Web site that
contains detailed information about the environmental management
system (EMS) standard and how an organization can register its EMS to
the standard. The site also contains links to popular environmental
organizations and resources located throughout the Web.
MSDS On Line (gopher://gopher.chem.utah.edu/ll/HSDS)
An alphabetical index and listing of pertinent chemical and safety
information arranged in an easy to view format can be found at this
site.
NABP (http://www.naep.org)
The National Association of Environmental Professionals' homepage
features information on issues affecting environmental professionals,
a reading room for the latest information and technology, as well as
areas where you can "NET-work" with other environmental professionals
and -join-in on discussion groups.
National Technical Information Service (http://www.ntis.gov)
This Web site is a useful research tool to determine pricing and the
availability of government manuals, handbooks, computer products, and
audiovisuals related to numerous environmental topics, including
environmental impact statements and environmental assessments.
Natural Environment Research Council (NERC) (http://www.nerc.ac.uk/)
The United Kingdom's environmental monitoring network collects,
stores, analyses, and interprets long-term data based on physical,
chemical, and biological variables which respond to environmental
change. The databases contain a wealth of information and links. The
link to environmental servers which can be found under "information
sources outside NERC" is excellent.
Oak Ridge National Laboratory Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy
Program (http: //www.ornl.gov/ORNL/Energy_Eff/Energy_Eff.html)
This Web site describes research and development in the field of
sustainable energy technology. It features descriptions and news
about ORNL programs as well as search engines and databases.
Information is provided about sustainable technologies that are in
the process of development. ; ______
13-15
-------
Table 13.6: (continued)
Renew America (http://solstice.crest.org/renew_america)
Renew America's Environmental Success Index features a compilation of
1,600 of the most successful environmental programs that can be used
as models for other communities in a national effort to protect,
restore, and enhance the environment.
Sierra Club (http://www.sierraclub.org:BO/)
Sierra Club's homepage contains links to numerous magazines,
newsletters, and articles and addresses topics such as global
warming, environmental education, and various policies. It contains
many links to other Internet resources.
UHBP - Industry and Environment (http://www.unepie.org)
Located in Paris. France, this center's mission is to promote cleaner
and safer industrial production and consumption. This site provides
information about the following program areas (as well as.others):
prevention of industrial accidents and minimization of impacts
(APELL), environmental management and pollution control of selected
high-risk sectors, preventative strategies for cleaner and more
efficient production, environmental technology assessment, and
outreach to industry to stimulate dialogue and initiatives on
sustainable development. There are two databases available, one of
which is called the International Cleaner Production Information
Clearinghouse, which provides information about clean technologies.
University of Manchester, BIA Centre
(http://www.art.man.ac.uk/eia/EIAc.html)
The EIA Centre's homepage contains EIA newsletters, an EIA leaflet
series, various papers, EIA Centre publications, a list of Centre
training activities, and documents regarding developing country
initiatives in EIA.
U.S. Department of Energy (DOB) Office of Environmental Management
(http: //www. em. doe. gov/ index. html)
This site contains information on topics related to environmental
management, including waste management, environmental restoration,
pollution prevention, and science and technology.
U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) Technical Information Services (TIS)
(http://tis.eh.doe.gov/)
This site is a collection of information sources related to safety
and health. It includes an information center, documents,
publications, regulatory information and guidelines, and offers
access to several databases. The databases include Populations at
Risk to Environmental Pollution, Risk Information Management System,
and many others.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (http://earthl.epa.gov)
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency has a homepage that gives
access to information about EPA offices and regions, calendars and
announcements, regulations, EPA standards, science and research,
newsletters and journals, and database resources.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA): Federal Register
(http://www.epa.gov/Rules.html)
This site contains the full text of selected Federal Register
documents that deal with the environment or environment-related
issues. It also contains a daily table of contents of the Federal
Register.
13-16
-------
Table 13.6: (continued)
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and Purdue University Software
for Environmental Awareness (http://vrww.epa.gov/glnpo/seahome/)
This address contains more than 40 environmental software programs
from DSEPA. it offers free interactive software, including risk
assessment and environmental assessment. Environmental Assessment
.Resource Guide (EARG) is a generic source of information to
facilitate the conduction of EAs for many types of projects.
"Scoping," generation of alternatives, impact identification and
analysis, mitigation and decision making are among the topics
covered. Comparative Risk Assessment outlines the history and
methodology of comparative risk assessment. Case studies and
information sources are provided. It provides a framework for
prioritizing environmental problems and is suited for a wide range of
users.
World Bank Homepage (http://www.worldbank.org)
In its "Topics in Development" section, the World Bank's Global
Environment Facility contains environmental information,
documentation, and publications. It also describes environmental
programs and includes many relevant links.
WWW Virtual Library - Sustainable Development
(http://www.ulb.ac.be/ceese/sustvl.html)
Maintained by the Universite" Libre de Bruxelles, this site contains a
list of links to organizations, projects/activities, up-coming
events, libraries, documents/references, electronic journals,
databases, and other relvant sites.
13-17
-------
Table 13.7: Additional Potentially Useful Web Site Addresses (Davis,
1998)
Government Agencies/ Program*
U.S. Department of the Interior (www.doi.gov/)
National Wetlands Inventory (www.nwi.fws.gov/)
U.S. Bureau of Reclamation (www.usbr.gov/)
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency—solid wastes
(www.epa.gov/epaoswer/)
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency—pesticides and toxic substances
(www.epa.gov/internet/oppts/)
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency--Superfund
(www.epa.gov/superf und/)
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission
-------
(13) National Aerial Photography Program Online Database of the
U.S. Geological Survey (http://edcwww.cr.usgs.gov/webglis/
glisbin/search.pl?)
(14) remediation Web site of the U.S. Army Environmental Center
(http://aec-www.apgea.army.mil:8080)
(15) on-line resources related to ground water
(www.groundwater .com)
(16) United Nations Environment Program (http://www.unep.org)
Five Web sites related to soil and ground water remediation include
(Strock, 1998):
(1) TechKnow (www.gnet.org)
(2) Clu-In, Hazardous Waste Clean-up Information
(http://clu-in.com)
(3) Research Center for Groundwater Remediation Design (RCGRD)
(www.rcgrd.edu)
(4) Ground Water Remediation Technologies Analysis Center
(www.gwrtac.org)
(5) Remediation Information Management System (RIMS)
(www.remedial.com)
Pollution prevention information which could be used in EIA can also
be found on the Web. Three examples of Web site addresses include (Petty,
1997b):
(1) solvent alternatives guide (SAGE) (http://clean.rti.org)
(2) coating alternatives guide (CAGE) (http://clean.rti.org/cage)
(3) pollution prevention environmental design guide (P2EDGE)
(ht tp: / /p2. pnl. gov: 2 0 8 0 /DFE/p2edge. html)
The Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR) has
developed a comprehensive database called HazDat. HazDat contains
information about the release of hundreds of hazardous substances into the
environment and the effects of those substances on human health (Perry, et
al., 1997). HazDat, which was placed on the Web in 1994, has the
following address (atsdrl.atsdr.cdc.gov:8080/hazdat.html.).
The Internet is beginning to be used in training courses. For
example. Web site searching for information, including the use of
searchable software, has been utilized in job-related training associated
with the 1995 Canadian Environmental Assessment Act (Croal, 1997).
A Web-interface database has been developed by Environment Canada
for use in the fulfillment of requirements of the Canadian Environment
Assessment Act. The database, called the National Environmental
Assessment Screening System, or NBAS, can be used in a "Screening mode to
facilitate the preparation of assessments by providing multiple scroll-
andI pop-uj? minus of text (McLean-and Michaud, 1998) . The data
13-19
-------
entered in NBAS can then be used to develop statistics and reports related
to the EIA process. . . i vs
«*'»c«-".«*'
The Institute for Water JUsources of the U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers is developing a guide for identifying and describing information
on natural resources in the United States that is available on the Web
(Doll, et al., 1998). Examples of Web sites to be included in the guide
include :
(1) Federal sites
• Biosphere Reserves
• Chesapeake Bay Program
• Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended- -Endangered
Species Program
• Migratory Nongame Birds of Management Concern in the
United States
• National Marine Sanctuary Program
• National Wildlife Refuge System
• North American Wat erf low Management Plan
• Wetlands of International Importance, and
• Wild and Scenic Rivers Act of 196 8 --National Wild and
Scenic Rivers System
(2) Nonprofit sites
• National Audubon Society- -WatchList of Species
• The Nature Conservancy, and
• Western Hemisphere Shorebird Reserve Network
(3) State sites
• State Natural Heritage Programs (Montana and Arkansas,
as examples)
• State departments of natural resources (Colorado, as an
example)
• State departments of fish and wildlife resources
(Kentucky, as an example) , and
• California Environmental Resources Evaluation System
(3) Local sites
• Everglades Information Network and
• San Francisco Estuary Institute
Online publication of journals is being adopted by some professional
organizations. For example, the Air and Waste Management Association is
now publishing the Journal of the Air and Waste Management Association in
this manner. The Journal can be accessed through the "A&WMA Online
Publications" link which is found on the Association's Web site
(http://www.awma.org) . The user must be an AWMA member with a unique
password. In a variation of this practice, the prepublication contents of
the journal Environmental Impact Assessment Review can be procured via an
e-mail contact (CONTENTSDIRECTOelsevier.uk) .
Benefits and Concerns Related to Web Usage
Examples of potential benefits of developing and using Web-related
information in the EIA process are listed in Table 13.8 (Jessee, 1998).
Further, examples of concerns are highlighted in Table 13.9.
13-20
-------
Table 13.8: Examples of Potential Benefits of Using Web-based Information
in the EIA Process (Jessee, 1998}
Allows agencies to share corporate resources, minimizing
duplication of effort and the potential for work at cross-
purposes ;
Creates a means for sharing baseline environmental data;
Enables proactive, predictive EIA necessary to anticipate issues
before proposals are made and before alternatives are precluded;
Establishes coordinated monitoring approaches to evaluate the
effectiveness of the NEPA/EIA process in agency planning and
decision making;
Enables governments to sustain the commitment to improve and
coordinate plans, functions, programs, and resources to fulfill
the responsibilities of each generation as trustee of the
environment for succeeding generations;
Provides a means for determining the long-run impacts or
outcomes of a program or policy;
Ensures consideration of cumulative effects in strategic
environmental assessments (SEAs) that are sometimes overlooked
in site-specific analyses;
Preserves important historic, cultural, and national aspects of
societal heritage and maintains an environment that supports
diversity and variety of individual choice;
Enables attainment of the widest range of beneficial uses of the
environment without degradation, risk to health or safety, or
other undesirable and unintended consequences;
Achieves a balance between population and resource use that will
permit high standards of living and a wide sharing of life's
amenities ;
Enhances the quality of renewable resources and approaches the
maximum attainable recycling of depleted resources.
13-21
-------
Table 13.9: Examples of Problems/Issues Which May Arise When the Internet
Is Used in the EIA Process
Problems associated with computer viruses and resultant "damage"
to user computer systems.
Presumption of completeness of information procured from the
Internet; however, the information will most likely be
incomplete or unavailable from Web sites.
The "overwhelming" quantity of information which can be found
with this situation representing "information overload"
regarding users.
Incompatibilities between computer software, Web servers,
computer languages, and older vs. newer software.
Need for a standardized format for citing reference material and
information procured from the World Wide Web.
Lack of quality control on data and information placed on Web
sites. In fact, there is no governing body (or control group)
for information placed on the Internet.
Biased information rather than balanced information related to
many impact issues which may be of concern in the EIA process.
Less-than-uniform access to e-mail and the World Wide Web on the
part of many stakeholders and individuals.
The time requirements associated with more and more searching
for less important topics related to the EIA process.
Web sites which are not regularly updated.
13-22
-------
USE OF CD-ROMS AND COMPUTER SOFTWARE
The final example of the information-availability explosion is the
growing number of CD-ROMs with EIA and/or CEA-related information. To
illustrate, a large number of CD-ROMs related to different aspects of the
EIA process are now available. The included information ranges from books
and reports to environmental data to models for impact prediction
calculations. Following are some examples of potentially useful CD-ROMs:
(1) Cooper* s Toxic Exposures Desk Reference with CD-ROM is a
handbook and accompanying CD-ROM containing summaries of
information on 200 of the most hazardous chemicals used in
industry and found in the workplace (Cooper, 1997) . For each
of the chemicals information is included on physical
properties, warning properties and permissible exposure
levels, health hazard concerns, exposure routes and effects,
and emergency response procedures, among others
(http://www.crcpress.com).
(2) RCRA Hazardous Waste Source Disk CD-ROM includes full text,
tables, and graphics for the Resource Conservation and
Recovery Act, Hazardous and Solid Waste Act Amendments, the
Federal Facilities Compliance Act, and parts of Titles 40 and
49 of the Code of Federal Regulation (CFR) covering hazardous
waste and hazardous materials transportation. Also included
are listings of more than 800 contact names within federal and
state agencies, private industry, research institutions, and
national databases. This CD-ROM is available from Government
Institutes, Rockville, Maryland (e-mail: giinfoeaol.com).
(3) CFR Chemical Lists on CD ROM includes 110 chemical lists from
the Code of Federal Regulations (Government Institutes, 1997) .
The lists encompass those chemicals regulated under various
laws by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Occupational
Safety and Health Administration, and the U.S. Department of
Transportation. Chemicals can be searched across multiple
lists. (Note: other commercial companies may offer similar
CD-ROMs.)
(4) ATSDR's Toxicological Profiles on CD-ROM consists of profiles
of the toxicological effects of numerous hazardous substances,
chemicals, and compounds (Agency for Toxic Substances and
Disease Registry, 1996). Also included is information on
mitigation of health effects. The CD-ROM is indexed and user
friendly; further, it can be searched across profiles.
(5) Properties of Organic Compounds on CD-ROM. Personal Edition
includes chemical and physical property data and related
information on 27,500 of the most commonly used organic
compounds (Lide and Milne, 1996). Information can be easily
displayed and downloaded to printers and Windows-compatible
word processors.
(6) Air CHIEF Version 4.0 is available on CD-ROM and features
search and retrieval software (U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, 1995) . The entire text of AP-42 (Compilation of Air
Pollutant Emission Factors), along with several related data
bases, is included. This CD-ROM can be used in developing air
pollutant emission inventories.
(7) Environmental Statutes Review Course is a CD-ROM containing a
computer-based training course that uses narration and
13-23
-------
graphics focused on seven key federal laws—the Resource
Conservation and Recovery Act; Emergency Planning and
Community Right-to-Know Act; Clean Air Act; Clean Water Act;
Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and
Liability Act; Toxic Substances and Control Act; and Federal
Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (U.S.
Environmental Protect Act, 1997) . Modules on each law also
contain interactive exercises and examinations.
(8) Integrated Risk Information System (IRIS) is an extensive
database focused on how chemicals affect human health (U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, 1998). IRIS can be used as
a key source of information for risk assessments of chemicals
of environmental concern. Approximately 500 chemicals are
addressed in 15-20 pages each. This extensive database is
available on CD-ROM (Government Institutes, 1998).
(9) Risk Management for Hazardous Chemicals (Two Volume Set plus
CD-ROM) is an extensive document focused on methods and
procedures for managing the risks associated with using
hazardous chemicals (Vincoli, 1996).
(10) The Code of Federal Regulations on CD-ROM is offered by
governmental agencies through the National Technical
Information Service and several commercial companies (examples
include Government Institutes, Solutions Software Corporation,
and Business and Legal Reports, Inc.) . Prices differ with the
offerer. Typically, all 50 titles of the CFR are included,
with quarterly updates available. The CD-ROM is user friendly
and easily searchable. In some cases, only Titles 29 (OSHA) ,
40 (EPA) , and 49 (DOT) are included. State environmental
regulations are also available on CD-ROM for about 25 states
through Business and Legal Reports, Inc., Madison,
Connecticut; phone: 800-7-ASK-BLR (800-727-5257).
(11) EPA Training Library on CD-ROM is focused on specific EPA and
OSHA hazardous waste training requirements. This CD-ROM is
available from Business and Legal Reports, Inc., Madison,
Connecticut; phone: 800-7-ASK-BLR (800-727-5257).
(12) A wastewater treatment course called Operations Training is
available on two CD-ROMs from the Hater Environment Federation
in Alexandria, Virginia (phone: 800-666-0206). The course is
user friendly and includes photographs, diagrams, audio-
enhanced animations, and videos from actual treatment plants.
(13) Watershed Management is a graduate course delivered via CD-
ROM, an Internet bulletin board, and e-mail. The course
provides a current overview of integrated watershed
management. Information about course contents and
requirements is available from:
DEC Continuing Studies
University of British Columbia
Vancouver, British Columbia
(phone: 604-822-1450)
(Web site: http://www.ire.ubc.ca)
(14) Integrated Watershed Management: A Hyper-Media CD-ROM is
available from the Institute for Resources and Environment
(IRE), University of British Columbia, Vancouver, British
Columbia (Web site: http//www.ire.ubcrca). This CD-ROM is
13-24
-------
like an electronic textbook which includes topics on
hydrology, water quality, aquatic biota, land use issues, case
studies, and several others. Also available from IRE is Urban
Watershed Assessment on CD-ROM; this reference focuses on the
impacts of urbanization on the health of watersheds.
(15) Ground Water Modeling CD-ROM includes more than 125 software
packages related to modeling and geochemistry, including
models addressing solute transport and fate. This CD-ROM is
available from the National Ground Water Association (Web
site: http://www.ngwa.org).
(16) Methods and Guidance for the Analysis of Water (on CD-ROM) is
available from the National Technical Information Service
(NTIS) of the U.S. Department of Commerce (Web site:
http://www.ntis.gov/ordernow/) . This CD-ROM includes
information on more than 350 drinking water and wastewater
methods to test for 776 analytes. It contains the full text
of all wastewater methods listed in 40 CFR 136 and all
drinking water methods approved at 40 CFR 141, including the
500, 600, and 1600 series methods. Also, available from NTIS
is Test Methods for Evaluating Solid Waste Physical/Chemical
Methods (SW-846 on CD-ROM). This CD-ROM focuses on testing
methods for the various characteristics of solid wastes.
(17) Environment Abstracts on CD-ROM is available from
Congressional Information Service, Inc., Bethesda, Maryland.
Monthly updates include abstracts selected from 800 English-
language scientific journals published in the United States
and abroad--including all major environment-related science
journals. Environment Abstracts are also available in paper
copy. Information can be obtained by the use of e-mail:
supportacispubs.com.
Several commercial companies are also producing CD-ROMs which
include environmental data bases; one example is:
Earth Info, Inc.
5541 Central Avenue
Boulder, Colorado B0301 USA
Phone: 303-938-1788
Fax: 303-938-8183
The environmental data bases available on CD-ROM from Earth Info,
Inc., encompass water quality and hydrology, and climate and atmospheric
information.
Numerous "software companies" as well as consulting firms are
advertising regarding the availability of modeling software or other
management information system (MIS) software which could be used in the
EIA process, including cumulative effects predictions. In many cases, the
software, with supporting documentation, can be purchased. Four examples
will be noted:
(1) MIS software, federal regulations, chemical databases, health
and safety training modules, permit recordkeeping systems, and
selected environmental modeling software are available from
envirowin Software, Inc. Two examples of modeling software
are Risk Assistant for Windows VI.l (for use in rapidly
estimating exposures and human health risks from chemicals in
the environment) and BREEZE~HAZ Air Force Toxic Dispersion
13-25
-------
Model (AFTOX) for Windows (for use in meeting risk management
and hazard assessment requirements for facilities storing or
handling regulated toxic and flammable substances; these
requirements are in-Sec. 112 of the 1990 Clean Air Act
Amendments; AFTOX is a puff/plume dispersion model for
continuous and instantaneous, liquid and gas, surface and
elevated releases). Contact
envirowin Sofware, Inc.
P.O. Box 18110
Chicago, XL 66618-0110
Telephone: 800*454-0404
Web site: http://www.envirowin.com
(2) Ground water and surface water related modeling software is
available from Scientific Software Group. Examples of
software include Processing Modflow for Windows, Visual
Modflow, MT3D96 (modular 3-D solute transport model), BioSVE
(vacuum enhanced recovery with bioventing), SMS (surface water
modeling system for Windows), and WMS (watershed modeling
system with HEC-1). Contact
Scientific Software Group
P.O. Box 23041
Washington, D.C. 20026-3041
Telephone: 703-620-9214
Web site: http://www.scisoftware.com
(3) A decision support system for watershed management (named the
Watershed Analysis Risk Management Framework or WARMF Version
3.0) is available from Systech Engineering, Inc. WARMF
Version 3.0 includes nonpoint source models, pollution loading
calculations, water quality modeling for several constituents,
and spatial distribution presentations using GIS formats.
Contact
Systech Engineering, Inc.
3180 Crow Canyon Place
Suite 260
San Ramon, CA 94583
Telephone: 925-355-1780
Web site: http://members.aol.com/STENGl/)
(4) A multipurpose environmental analysis system, called BASINS,
is available from TetraTech, Inc. BASINS includes national
databases on streamflow and water quality, specific tools for
mining such data, and watershed and water quality models
(including NPSM—nonpoint source model, and QUAL 2E—version
3.2). Database and model outputs are integrated within a GIS
system for purposes of visual display. Contact
TetraTech, Inc.
10306 Baton Place, Suite 340
Fairfax. Virginia 22030
Telephone: 703-385-6000
Fax: 703-38S-6007
SUMMARY
Opportunities for using computer-based technologies for information
procurement and communication within the EIA process are expanding and
13-26
-------
changing rapidly. The challenge for EIA practitioners is to keep abreast
of such changes and opportunities. Three examples of computer-based
technologies addressed herein include bibliographic searching and data
retrieval, the Internet, and a variety of CD-ROMs and computer software.
Further, it should be noted that information procurement and communication
via the Internet provides unique possibilities for making the EIA process
more efficient and effective.
Perhaps the most important advantage of Internet usage in the EIA
process is related to the cumulative knowledge developed by the user over
time. Key Web sites can be identified and used routinely. Useful points
of contact for information and data can be developed as a function of
project type and location. Further, useful models available on CD-ROMs or
in computer software can be aggregated and used on an as-needed basis.
With the above-described examples of the information explosion, it
is tempting to think that the EIA process, including CEA, can be fully
supported via computer software focused on impact identification,
modeling, and interpretation information. However, some cautions in this
regard were developed at a workshop in 1996 (Warner, et al.. 1997a and
1997b) . Specifically, cautions were advanced on three issues: (1)
complete dependence on computer-based scoping checklists as a substitution
for creative thinking; (2) overreliance on CIS systems when the quality of
input data is questionable; and (3) use of EIA software for training in
lieu of "hands-on" experience using actual case studies. To partially
overcome some of these concerns, it was recommended that "prompts" be
incorporated within software and user manuals. These prompts could be used
to impress on the user that (Warner, et al., 1997a and I997b) :
(1) a systematic program of stakeholder consultation is integral
to identifying impacts and proposing mitigation;
(2) verification of impact inventories should be made through site
visits;
(3) there are limitations of checklists and dangers associated
with scoring impacts;
(4) impact importance and consequential mitigation should be
identified on the basis of a combination of reasoning, values,
policies and experience, and not personal judgment alone; and
(5) technical and institutional feasibility studies will probably
be needed for all major mitigation proposed.
Finally, an "EIA Workbench* is being developed as a joint effort
between several EIA practitioners. The workbench, which will be available
on the Web, will contain text material, data, models, environmental
standards, and laws and regulations useful within the EIA process
(Webster, et al., 1998) . In addition, links to numerous Web sites will be
provided.
ECTED
Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry, ATSDR's Toxieoloaical
Profiles on CD-ROM. Lewis Publishers, Boca Raton, Florida, 1996.
Anonymous, "How Big Is the Internet?", EM (Air and Waste Management
Association), June, 1997, pp. 63-64.
13-27
-------
Bahorsky, R., editor, Official Internet Dictionary: A Comprehensive
Reference for Professionals. Government Institutes, Rockville, Maryland.
1998.
Briggs-Erickson, C., and Murphy, T., Environmental Guide to the Internet.
I Third Edition, Government Institutes, Rockville, Maryland, 1997.
Canter, L.W., Environmental Impact Assessment. Second Edition, McGraw-Hill
Book Company, Inc., New York, New York, 1996, pp. 43 and 45.
Cooper, A.R., Cooper's Toxic Exposure Desk Reference with CD-ROM. Lewis
Publishers, Boca Raton, Florida, 1997.
Council on Environmental Quality, "The National Environmental Policy Act--
A Study of Its Effectiveness After Twenty-five Years," January, 1997,
Washington, D.C., p. 49.
Croal, P., "Using Computer Software to Assist in Training on the Canadian
Environmental Assessment Act (CEAA): Canadian International Development
Agency (CIDA) Case Example," Impact Assessment. Vol. 15, September, 1997,
pp. 295-303.
Davis, D.H., American Environmental Polities. Nelson-Hall Publishers,
Chicago, Illinois, 1998, pp. 235-239.
Doll, A., Nolton, D., and Wheeler-Smith, S., "Setting Priorities for
Watershed Restoration and Management: Resource Significance Protocol,"
Proceedings of Specialty Conference on Watershed Management; Moving from
Theory to Implementation. May 3-6, 1998, Water Environment Federation,
Alexandria, Virginia, pp. 707-714.
Eide, J., "The Internet, the World Wide Web, and Impact Assessment,"
Abstracts Volume of the 18th Annual Meeting of the International
Association for Impact Assessment, April 19-24, 1998, Christchurch, New
Zealand, pp. 49-50.
Government Institutes, CFR Chemical Lists on CD Rom. Rockville, Maryland,
1997 edition.
Government Institutes, "IRIS-CD (EPA's Integrated Risk Information
System)," Rockville, Maryland, 1998.
Government Institutes, RCRA Hazardous Waste SoureeDisk CD Rom. Rockville,
Maryland, 1996.
Guttentag, R.M., Recycling and Waste Management Guide to the Internet.
Government Institutes, Rockville, Maryland, 1997.
International Association for Impact Assessment, "Environmental Impact
Assessment: Preliminary Index of Useful Internet Web Sites," June, 1997,
Fargo, North Dakota (http://www.iaia.ext.nodak.edu/iaia/eialist.html).
International Association for Impact Assessment, "Environmental Impact
Assessment (EIA) Training Course Database," 1998, Fargo, North Dakota
(http://www.erin.gov.au/portfolio/epg/eianet/iaia.html) .
Jessee, L., "The National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA NET) and DOE NEPA
Web: What They Bring to Environmental Impact Assessment," Environmental
Impact Assessment Review. Vol. 18, No. 1, January, 1998, pp. 73-82.
Katz, M., and Thornton, D., Environmental Management Tools on the
Internet. St. Lucie Press, Delray Beach, Florida, 1-997.
13-28
-------
Kurz, R.A., Internet and the Law: Legal Fundamentals for the
User. Government Institutes, Rockville, Maryland, 1996.
Lanfear, K.J., and Klima, K.S., "Linking Watershed Data Bases on the World
Wide Web," Proceedings of Specialty Conference on Watershed Management:
Moving from Theory to Implementation. May 3-6,1998, Water Environment
Federation, Alexandria, Virginia, pp. 725-732.
Lee, C.C., Chemical Guide to the Internet. Government Institutes,
Rockville, Maryland, 1996.
Lide, D.R., and Milne, G.W., editors, Properties of Organic Compounds on
CD-ROM -- Personal Edition. CRC Press, Inc., Boca Raton, Florida, 1996.
Lohani, B.N., Evans, J.W., Ludwig, H., Everitt, R.R., Carpenter, R.A., and
Tu, S.L., Environmental Impact Assessment for Developing Countries in
Asia. Asian Development Bank, Manila, Philippines, 1997, pp. A-l to A-3.
McLean, G., and Michaud, C., "NBAS: The Latest Web Technology for
Environmental Assessments, " Abstracts Volume of the 18th Annual Meeting of
the International Association for Impact Assessment, April 19-24, 1998,
Christchurch, New Zealand, p. 89.
National Association of Environmental Professionals, "Check Out These
World Wide Web Sites," NAEP News. Vol. 21, No. 4, July/August, 1996, p. 5.
National Association of Environmental Professionals, "Check Out These
World Wide Web Sites," NAEP News. Vol. 23, No. 3, May/June, 1998, p. 19.
National Ground Water Association, "Visit Our Jobs Page on the Web," NGWA
AGWSE Newsletter. March/April, 1998, p. 3.
Okotie, S., "Environmental Assessment and the Internet," Environmental
Assessment. Vol. 3, No. 4, December, 1995, pp. 121-122.
Perry, M., Susten, S.S., and Yaun, M.B., "HazDat: A Comprehensive
Environmental Release and Health Effects Database on the Internet," EM
(Air and Waste Management Association), September, 1997, pp. 18-20.
Petty, M., "Job Hunting on the Internet," Environmental Protection. Vol.
8, No. 8, August, 1997a, pp. 22-24.
Petty, M., "Pollution Prevention in the Information Age," Environmental
Protection. Vol. 8, No. 8, August, 1997b, pp. 34-36.
RCG/Hagler, Bailly and Co., Inc., "GLEEN: Global Energy and Environmental
Network Project--Internet Energy and Environment Sampler," January, 1995,
Washington, D.C.
Schupp, J.F., Environmental Guide to the Internet. First Edition,
Government Institutes, Rockville, Maryland, 1995, pp. iii-xx.
Steigerwald, J.E., "User's Manual for the RBLC BBS," EPA/456/B-97/001,
March, 1997, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park,
North Carolina.
Strock, J.M., "Use the Internet to Your Remediation Research Advantage,*
NAEP News (National Association of Environmental Professionals), Vol. 23,
No. 1, January/February, 1998, pp. 8-9.
Stuart, R.B., safety and Health on the Internet. Government Institutes,
Rockviile, Maryland, 1996. —
13-29
-------
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, "Access EPA," EPA/220-B95-004,
1995/96 Edition, 1996, Washington, D.C.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, "Air CHIEF, Version 4.0 (on CD-ROM
with Search and Retrieval Software),• 1995, available from National
Technical Information Service, U.S. Department of Commerce, Springfield,
Virginia.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, "Environmental Statute Review Course
(CD-ROM)," 1997, available from National Technical Information Service,
U.S. Department of Commerce, Washington, D.C.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, "Integrated Risk Information System
(IRIS) (on Diskette),* January, 1998, available from National Technical
Information Service, U.S. Department of Commerce, Washington, D.C.
Vincoli, J.W., Risk Management for Hazardous Chemicals. Lewis Publishers,
Boca Raton, Florida, 1996.
Warner, M., Croal, P., Dalai-Clayton, B., and Knight, J., "Environmental
Impact Assessment Software in Developing Countries: A Health Warning,"
Project Appraisal. Vol. 12, No. 2, June, 1997a, pp. 127-130.
Warner, M., Croal, P., Dalai-Clayton, B., and Knight, J., "EIA Software in
Developing Countries: A Health Warning," Impact Assessment. Vol. 15, No.
4, December, 1997b, pp. 407-413.
Webster, R., Ashton, P., and Canter, L.W., "Development of an EIA
Workbench," paper presented at the 18th Annual Meeting of the
International Association for Impact Assessment, April 24-28, 1998,
Christchurch, New Zealand.
13-30
-------
CHAPTER 14
BARRIERS, GUIDELINES, AND RESEARCH NEEDS
Even though much has been learned in the mid-to-late 1990s regarding
how to plan and conduct cumulative effects assessments (CEAs), there are
still significant hindrances to the successful incorporation of CEA within
the environmental impact assessment (EIA) process. Accordingly, this
chapter summarizes some scientific and institutional barriers related to
CEA. Suggestions for CEA guidelines are also included along with several
research needs.
SCIENTIFIC AND INSTITUTIONAL BARRIERS TO CEA
Numerous scientific and institutional barriers have been identified
in relation to the CEA process; and this section will identify a number of
examples. First, such barriers include environmental and ecosystem
complexity, difficulties in measuring individual effects, lack of
attention to defining appropriate spatial and temporal boundaries, and
lack of sustained interest in managing (or mitigating) cumulative effects.
However, a systematic review of 12 case studies involving CEA has
identified the following perspectives and actions as ways to minimize such
barriers (Williamson, 1993): (1) emphasize scientific, cause-effect
understanding and communication of the overall situation, each problem
(cumulative effect), and problem interactions; (2) stress measurable
overall action toward progressive goals for each problem; (3) use a
generation-long, ecosystem-level, problem-solving, and solution-generating
process; and (4) ratify an interagency collaborative drive toward
cumulative improvement of the overall situation. Pragmatically, these
perspectives and actions can be incorporated into an appropriate CEA
process coupled with follow-on environmental management; the process
should consist of the following steps (Williamson, 1994):
(1) in the scoping phase, define the ecological situation in
specific terms of individual problem statements and select one
strategy for each problem;
(2) in the analysis phase, investigate and document the problems
and their causes in detail using the best available data and
analytical tools and then set several goals;
(3) in the interpretation phase, develop and document options,
estimate changes using mathematical models, and develop a
plan; and
(4) in the direction phase, implement and incrementally improve
the management plan and systematically evaluate, improve, and
update the problem statements, data, analytical tools, and
mathematical models.
For a specific type of ecological setting. Vestal, et al. (1995)
noted the following scientific and institutional barriers to the
conduction of CEA in coastal and/or marine environments: (1) significant
gaps in scientific knowledge about cause and effect relationships; (2)
absence of a single accepted approach for prediction of cumulative effects
on coastal and/or marine ecosystems; (3)_absence of unambiguous statutory
requirements for doing CEA; (4) narrow court interpretations regarding
14-1
-------
statutory and regulatory requirements; (5) inherent focus on individual
sites (and projects) in decision-making; and (6) absence of a longer-term
perspective for the environmental management of coastal and marine
ecosystems. Obviously, these fundamental barriers cannot be resolved
quickly. In fact, they are suggestive of the need for a long-term
research program, particularly for numbers (1), (2), and (6).
A survey of substantive issues and needs related to CEA was recently
conducted; the participants included 25 EIA practitioners in the United
States (Cooper and Canter, 1997a). Five identified issues and possible
approaches for addressing them are summarized in Table 14.1. The listed
issues represent pragmatic concerns related to the planning and conduction
of CEAs.
Sadar (1997) noted that institutional obstacles to effective CEA
result from: (1) jurisdictional conflicts, confusions and turf battles
over division of power, roles, and responsibilities of various levels of
government; (2) lack of proper and effective cooperation among various
agencies and departments of governments; (3) the absence of clear and
precise division of responsibilities among the proponent(s) and
governments regarding the implementation of remedial measures; and (4) the
lack of accountability of governments regarding proper follow-up of
results and recommendations contained in an impact study report. Further,
jurisdictional barriers may inhibit the implementation of mitigation
measures for project-level cumulative effects (Lawrence, 1997). In
addition, CEA may be constrained by limitations in the jurisdictional
authority of specific governmental agencies (Erickson, 1994). The
obstacles are founded upon the lack of political will, on the part of key
governmental decision makers, to embark upon a positive and aggressive
program to incorporate CEA within the EIA process of their governmental
agencies. If positive and aggressive stances were taken by EIA advocates
and key decision makers within governmental agencies, most, if not all, of
the above-listed institutional barriers could be minimized.
A key barrier is related to the fact that few pragmatic regulations
or guidelines have been developed on how to plan and conduct a CEA
(Kreske, 1996). In fact, this may be one of the most significant barriers
to efficient and effective CEA studies. Because of the absence of specific
guidance, cumulative effects may not be addressed at all, or they may be
addressed too late in the EIA process. For example, McCold (1997)
suggested that cumulative effects are not considered in a timely manner.
If such effects are identified late in the process, there may be
insufficient time to identify and characterize the impacts of other
actions affecting the resources.
A second example related to consequences from the lack of guidelines
is associated with two types of impact study documents generated in the
EIA process in the United States. Preliminary studies are documented via
environmental assessments (EAs), while more detailed studies lead to
environmental impact statements (EISs). EISs are needed if the proposed
action is anticipated to cause significant impacts on the biophysical
and/or socioeconomic environments. The significance determination should
include the consideration of direct, indirect, and cumulative effects.
The first category of effects is typically addressed in an EA, with lesser
attention to the latter two categories, particularly cumulative effects.
For example, McCold and Holman (1995) reviewed 89 EAs that had been issued
in 1992. Only 35 mentioned cumulative effects, with 13 concluding that
there were either no cumulative effects, or no significant ones; however,
no evidence or analysis was included to support such conclusions. Of the
22 EAs that documented the CEA, only three considered effects for all
resources potentially affected by the action. Further, only two EAs
identified other "past, present or reasonably foreseeable future" actions,
14-2
-------
Table 14.lt Substantive CEA Issues Needing Improvement and Approaches for Addressing Them
(after Cooper and Canter, 1997a)
Issue
Approaches Tor Issue
Types of Effects: Although additive effects were coiuidered
to be relatively eiiy to identify, synergislic and interactive
effects are not well undentood, and they are difficult to
accurately predict. Identification of these latter two types of
effects typically requires the use of complex and expensive
models. •
Recognition should be given to cumulative effects that can be identified as additive, lynergislic, or interactive. An indication of
the level of uncertainty associated with predicting such types of effects should be included in CEA documentation. Mass
balance calculation* for air and water pollutant emissions, resource usage, and/or resource losses are simple tools thai can be
used as a beginning step in addressing additive, synergislic, or interactive cumulative effects.
Defining Spatial Boundaries: It ii important to define the
geographic extent of a CEA study. Common deterrents to
defining spatial boundaries include determining where
cumulative effects end, the lack of funding and human
resources to address the issue, procurement of dau, and
understanding environmental interactions and relationships.
Emphasis should be given to defining spatial boundaries for each identified environmental resource of concern, especially
water-related resources, biological/ecological resources, and socio-economic resources. At a minimum relative to
biological/ecological resource*, ecoregion boundaries should be defined and the range of certain key species should be
delineated. Geographic information systems (GISs) in combination with overlay mapping techniques are seen as excellent tools
for delineating spatial boundaries. The capabilities of these techniques should be utilized if possible.
Defining Temporal Boundaries: It is necessary to consider
past and Allure actions in the vicinity of the proposed action.
However, common difficulties associated with establishing
temporal boundaries include defining reasonably foreseeable
actions, and predicting Allure events which may be influenced
by political considerations.
Availability and Use of Methods: Professional
knowledge/judgment and other qualitative methods of
predicting and assessing cumulative effects are the most
utilized methodologies. Both professional
knowledge/judgment and quantitative methods (i.e., models
and indices) were considered to be potentially useful.
However, the fact that quantitative methodologies were rated
high in importance but are not widely uaed (compared to
qualitative methods) could indicate that technical
understanding and economic requirements for usage are
limiting. Qualitative methodologies were identified as
preferred tools due to their practicality.
Emphasis should be given lo defining temporal boundaries for each pertinent environmental resource, especially in relation to
water-related resources, biological/ecological resources, and socio-economic resources. As part of defining temporal
boundaries, the design life of the proposed project, including the construction, operation, and post-operation alages, should be
considered. Also, a "master plan projection" of the design life of all identified past, present, and foreseeable future actions in
the study area should be developed. Contemplated actions as well as formally proposed actions should be considered as
reasonably foreseeable future actions.
Most EIA professionals wish lo use quantitative or technical methods for predicting cumulative effects, but these methods are
not always practical or feasible. Quantitative methodologies should be used as much as possible, especially simple models and
indices, ll is important lo remember that quantitative techniques have many limitations (for example, natural systems are
complex and their interactions not well known, and the availability of data is often limited) and they often produce inaccurate
results. Simple questionnaire checklists are practical techniques that are excellent tools for identifying effects. Case studies
(analogs) should also be utilized wherever possible. Finally, continued emphasis should be given to professional
knowledge/judgment and common sense in the CEA process.
Monitoring of Experienced Cumulative Effects: This issues
ia important in establishing a knowledge base for prediction
and assessment of cumulative effects. However, monitoring
components are typically not included aa follow-ons to CEA
studies.
The establishment of monitoring programs is a first step in developing a sound CEA protocol lh*t can produce objective suit
accurate information. Such monitoring should be a requirement of project proponents or be included in on-going monitoring
efforts by governmental agencies. Accordingly, it is recommended that federal agencies set funds siide for the purpose of
establishing special pilot monitoring programs. Each program should have a small and simple beginning, incorporating one or
two projects to address specific issues. As dau is generated, and their value becomes known, then the program could be
expanded appropriately.
-------
that, with the proposed action, could contribute to cumulative effects
(McCold, 1997).
A second illustration of -the lack of thorough consideration of
cumulative effects in EAs is from a systematic review of 30 additional EAs
prepared on a variety of project types in the United States. The review
revealed that cumulative effects are neither normally mentioned nor
thoroughly addressed (Burris and Canter, 1997a). Only 14 EAs noted the
term, with the mentioned cumulative effects typically addressed in a
qualitative manner without clear delineations of spatial and temporal
boundaries and utilized guidelines or methodologies. If EAs are to be
decision documents for determining if EZSs need to be prepared,
significance determinations for cumulative effects must be included. The
resultant documentation could refer to the consideration of such effects
and the determination that they are not significant; however, for some EAs
cumulative effects may be the determining issue in decisions to prepare
EISs.
CDIDELINES FOR CEA
To further illustrate the need for guidelines, the results from a
recently completed study of the state-of-practice of CEA within the EIA
process will be summarized (Burris and Canter, 1997c). The study included
the review of selected EAs, EISs, and relevant court cases from the United
States; the review of EIA regulations which incorporate CEA from 9
countries (or groups of countries); and the use of questionnaire survey
completed by 57 EIA practitioners from the United States and
internationally. The following observations and recommendations related
to improving the practice of CEA could be used in formulating CEA
guidelines (Burris and Canter, 1997c):
(1) standardization of a cumulative effects definition that
incorporates the vital components of CEA, and that could
easily be applied, is needed;
(2) regional planning/land development is an umbrella context that
many countries use to incorporate CEA; however, the CEA should
not get subsumed or become unrecognizable under this
framework;
(3) in countries like the United States where structured land
management/regional planning entities are typically not a part
of the EIA process, for CEA to work, legislation supporting
such a planning framework is needed; also, several
constraints, such as regional planners not knowledgeable about
CEA issues, and the lack of coordination between federal,
regional, state, and local organizations, will need to be
addressed;
(4) spatial and temporal boundaries are not always defined
specifically; accordingly, emphasis needs to be given to the
importance of defining when and where impacts will occur and
the assumptions associated with these definitions;
(5) due to the number of court cases addressing "reasonably
foreseeable future actions," special attention needs to be
given to defining RFFAs and their relationship to associated
study boundaries;
(6) monitoring of forecasted cumulative effects is a topic that
needs more attention; although some impacts may take years to
14-4
-------
accumulate or occur, "realistic" potential cumulative effects
should be analyzed in the short-term, thereby providing
guidance for future CEA studies; and
(7) more emphasis needs to be given to "regional planning
environmental goals" relative to being able to convert generic
CEA frameworks to "checklists" of specific items which need to
be addressed in a given region in CEA studies.
Some criteria which can be used to determine if a CEA study has been
properly conducted, and which could also serve as a basis for the
development of CEA guidelines, were developed by the Cumulative Effects
Assessment Working Group (1997). The following criteria are thus
analogous to delineating an appropriate state-of-practice for CEA:
(1) The study area is large enough to allow the assessment of VECs
that may be affected by the project. This may result in an
area that is considerably larger than the project's
"footprint." Each VEC may have a different study area.
(2) Other actions that have occurred, exist, or may yet occur
which may also affect those same VECs are identified. Future
actions that are approved within the study area must be
considered; officially announced and reasonably foreseeable
actions should be considered if they may affect those VECs and
there is enough information about them to assess their
effects. Some of these actions may be outside the study area
if their influence extends for considerable distances and
length of time.
(3) The incremental additive effects of the proposed project on
the VECs are assessed. If the nature of the effect's
interaction is more complex (e.g., synergistic), then assess
the effect on that basis, or explain why that is not
reasonable or possible.
(4) The total effect of the proposed project and other actions on
the VECs are assessed.
(5) These total effects are compared to thresholds or policies, if
available and the implications to the VECs are assessed.
(6) The analysis of these effects use quantitative techniques, if
available, based on best available data. This should be
enhanced by qualitative discussion based on best professional
judgment.
(7) Mitigation, monitoring and effects management should be
recommended (e.g., as part of an Environmental Protection
Plan). These measures may be required at a regional scale
(possibly with other stakeholders) to address broader concerns
of effects on VECs.
(8) The significance of residual effects are clearly stated and
defended.
It should be noted that recent governmental reports on CEA prepared
in the United States (Council on Environmental Quality, 1997) and Canada
(Cumulative Effects Assessment Working_Group, 1997) could serve as the
basis for developing guidelines. Information from these two reports has
14-5
-------
been incorporated in many of the earlier chapters herein. Further, the
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency has issued draft guidance on CEA for
their reviewers of EISs and EAs (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
1998). This draft guidance, included herein as Appendix C, could be used
even now to facilitate the planning and conduction of cumulative effects
studies.
Documentation of the CEA process should be incorporated in any
guidelines. For example, the results of a CEA can be placed in a separate
chapter in an EIS, or they can be interwoven within the project
environmental impacts chapter according to affected resources (Kreake,
1996). A list of topics for incorporation into a CEA report is in Table
14.2. These topics are relevant for the incorporation of CEA results
within an environmental impact document, or as a separate appendix within
such a document, or as a separate report. For a specific land area
managed by a governmental agency, but with multiple actions over time, a
separate "CEA document" that is updated periodically could be useful in
fulfilling multiple requirements for EIA documents.
Documentation of the CEA within a resultant EIS is important for
demonstrating the consideration of cumulative effects in the EIA process.
Based on a systematic review of 33 EISs prepared in the United States (11
each from the U.S. Department of Agriculture: Forest Service, the U.S.
Army Corps of Engineers, and the U.S. Department of Transportation:
Federal Highway Administration) relative to 15 pre-defined criteria, it
was determined that documentation consistency needs to be improved (Cooper
and Canter, 1997b). This need exists due to lack of specific guidance on
what should be addressed in such documentation. Accordingly, the
following CEA documentation recommendations for an EIS have been
promulgated (Cooper and Canter, 1997b):
(1) Cumulative effects should be defined at the beginning of the
Environmental Consequences section (or chapter), along with
definitions of direct impacts and indirect/secondary impacts.
Further, cumulative effects should be reported in a separate
sub-section in the Environmental Consequences section, and
they should be addressed for each pertinent environmental
resource and selected indicators. A summary of cumulative
effects should also be included. Any cumulative effects
considered insignificant should briefly be mentioned, and the
rationale for their insignificance determination should be
stated.
(2) Spatial and temporal boundaries for the CEA process should be
defined specifically for each pertinent environmental
resource. A map of spatial and temporal boundaries should be
included and differentiated from the project boundaries. This
should be included in the Environmental Consequences section.
(3) Guidelines and methodologies used in the CIA process should be
specifically described in a structured step-by-step procedure.
This could be addressed in an appendix to the EIS.
(4) Prior CEA studies (case studies) should be utilized, if
available and pertinent to the project. All prior studies
should be referenced. If no prior studies were utilized, then
this should be documented. This could be included in either
the Environmental Consequences section or in an appendix.
(5) An appendix should be included in the EIS for delineating the
details of the CEA process.
14-6
-------
Table 14.2: Suggested Topics for Inclusion in CEA Documentation
(after Sadar, 1997)
Definition of cumulative effects.
Description of various forms of cumulative effects and the
identification of those most likely to occur.
Identification of linkages among the bio-physical, socio-
economic, human and ecosystem health effects and their
relevance to human population and wildlife well being.
Description of selected impact prediction methodologies.
Description of the criteria used for determining the relative
significance of valued ecosystem components and every
cumulative effect.
Description of proposed mitigation and monitoring measures.
Identification of the roles and responsibilities of various
agencies, the proponent, and the public in implementing the
proposed measures.
Identification of the agency/authority responsible for making
the necessary adjustments in remedial measures and for taking
required action based on the monitoring results.
Identification of study limitations such as inadequacy of
available data/information, non-availability of proven
methodologies for accurately predicting cumulative effects,
and other limiting factors. .
14-7
-------
(6) Cumulative effects should be listed in the "Table of Contents"
under the Environmental Consequences section. Further, a
topical index should be incorporated into the EIS, and
referrals to cumulative effects should be included. A
glossary of terms may also be useful.
RESEARCH NEEDS
In summary based upon the review of principles, procedures, special
issues, scoping, methods, mitigation, and monitoring in the earlier
chapters, along with numerous case studies, the following observations and
conclusions are drawn regarding research needs in CEA:
•4
(1) Due to the importance of incorporating cumulative effects
considerations in balanced decisions related to proposed
projects, policies, plans, and/or programs, agency decision-
makers should give priority emphasis to the development of
necessary guidelines and scientific information to facilitate
CEAs. The guidelines for a particular country should be in
consonance with the EIA process; they should address
"triggers" for CEA studies, and how to plan, conduct, and
document such studies. Planning aspects include guidance on
principles for establishing spatial and temporal boundaries,
and information sources for the biophysical and socio-economic
environments.
(2) CEA practice to date has focused on the biophysical, including
ecological, aspects of the environment. Additional attention
needs to be given to cumulative effects on the socio-economic
environment, including the development of both identification
and prediction methods.
(3) Fundamental research is needed on environmental pathways,, and
thresholds and carrying capacities for resources, ecosystems,
and human communities. Of particular importance is the need
for information on carrying capacity and limits of acceptable
change.
(4) In order to conduct CEA, it is necessary for the study
planners and implementers to adopt an holistic perspective
relative to the environment. Such holistic perspectives might
be limited in traditional academic backgrounds, thus
suggesting the need for holistic type training for
practitioners in EIA and CEA. Further, the planning and
conduction of. CEA studies can be scientifically as well as
institutionally complicated. Accordingly, it is necessary for
such study implementers to be creative in their consideration
of methods and tools and to select those approaches which
would be appropriate for the individual study requirements.
(5) There are numerous methods or tools which are available for
addressing direct, indirect, and cumulative effects of
projects and of strategic plans. One of the problems which
appears to have developed in the context of cumulative effects
studies is that a convenient deterrent for addressing such
effects has been associated with indicating the absence of
appropriate methods. While this certainly can be understood
in some cases, it would not appear that this should be
considered a generic deterrent for all such studies. However,
specific research is still needed. For.example, Clark (1993)
noted that research on methods of assessment of cumulative
14-8
-------
effects is needed, especially as it relates to ecosystem
analysis. Also, a typology of methods is needed in relation
to the identification and prediction of cumulative effects.
(6) An important issue for CEA is that of considering the
cumulative effects from the perspective of affected resources,
ecosystems, and human communities. This perspective is in
contrast to the "proposed action" perspective used in the EIA
process. Research may be needed to facilitate this shift in
"mind set."
(7) Another topical issue in need of research is related to the
institutional coordination and funding mechanisms for
cumulative effects mitigation measures and appropriate
monitoring. Further, the entire subject of appropriate
management of cumulative effects needs to be conceptualized
and adapted to the institutional frameworks within and between
affected countries.
(8) Because of the relative newness of CEA practice, there are
considerable needs for information dissemination within and
between agencies and countries, and among CEA practitioners.
Further, specific training opportunities in CEA are needed,
with such training planned around fundamental principles,
steps, and methods coupled with illustrations from case
studies.
SELECTED REFERENCES
Burris, R.K., and Canter, L.W., "Cumulative Impacts Are Not Properly-
Addressed in Environmental Assessments," EIA Review. Vol. 17, No. 1,
January, 1997a, pp. 5-18.
Burris, R.K. , and Canter, L.W., "Facilitating Cumulative Impact Assessment
in the EIA Process," International Journal of Environmental Studies
(Section Al. Vol. 53, 1997c, pp. 11-29.
Cooper, T.A., and Canter, L.W., "Substantive Issues in Cumulative Impact
Assessment: A State of Practice Survey," Impact Assessment. Vol. 15, No.
1, March, 1997a, pp. 15-31.
Cooper, T.A., and Canter, L.W., "Documentation of Cumulative Impacts in
Environmental Impact Statements," EIA Review. Vol. 17, No. 6, November/
1997b, pp. 385-411 (feature article).
Council on Environmental Quality, "Considering Cumulative Effects Under
the National Environmental Policy Act," January, 1997, Executive Office of
the President, Washington, D.C.
Cumulative Effects Assessment Working Group, "Cumulative Effects
Assessment Practitioners Guide," December, 1997, draft copy, Canadian
Environmental Assessment Agency, Hull, Quebec, Canada, pp. 3, 9, 13, 16,
26, 43, 61, 64, C-l, and C-2.
Erickson, P.A., A Practical Guide to Environmental Impact Assessment.
Academic Press, Inc., San Diego, California, 1994, pp. 231-239.
Kreske, D.L., Environmental Impact Statements — A Practical Guide for
Agencies. Citizens, and Consultants. John Wiley and Sons, Inc., New York,
New York, 1996, pp. 7, 166-168, and 332^342.
14-9
-------
Lawrence, D.P., "Cumulative Impacts and El A: Project Level
Considerations," EIA Newsletter 14. University of Manchester, Manchester,
England, August, 1997.
McCold, L., "Cumulative Impacts and EIA: To What Extent are They
Considered?," EIA newsletter 14. University of Manchester, Manchester,
England, August, 1997.
McCold, L., and Rolman, J., "Cumulative Impacts in Environmental
Assessments: How Well Are They Considered?," The Environmental
Professional, Vol. 17, No. 1, 1995, pp. 2-8.
Sadar, H., "Cumulative Impacts and EIAt The Development of a Practical
Framework," EIA Newsletter 14. University of Manchester, Manchester,
England, August, 1997.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, "Consideration of Cumulative Impacts
in EPA Review of NEPA Documents,* March, 1998, Office of Federal
Activities, Washington, D.C.
Vestal, B., Rieser, A., Ludwig, M., Rurland, J., Collins, C., and Ortiz,
J., "Methodologies and Mechanisms for Management of Cumulative Coastal
Environmental Impacts — Part I: Synthesis, with Annotated Bibliography,
and Part II: Development and Application of a Cumulative Impacts
Assessment Protocol," NOAA Coastal Ocean Program Decision Analysis Series
No. 6, September, 1995, Coastal Ocean Office, National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, Silver Spring,
Maryland, pp. xxi-xxvii and 125-135 in Part I, and pp. 1-10 and 31-35 in
Part II.
Williamson, S.C., "Cumulative Impacts Assessment and Management Planning:
Lessons Learned to Date," Environmental Analysis — The NEPA Experience.
Hildebrand, S.G., and Cannon, J.B., editors, Lewis Publishers, Inc., Boca
Raton, Florida, 1993, pp. 391-407.
14-10
------- |