August 10-12, 1999
      U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
           New York, New York
            PRESENTED BY

          LARRY CANTER, PH.D.
          SAM ATKINSON, PH.D.
             P.O. BOX 2301
      NORMAN, OKLAHOMA 73072-2301
         Phone or Fax (405)321-2730
         Web Site:


                   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

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


      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

      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).


      Three examples of recent studies which identified the importance and
challenges related to CEA will be highlighted.  Although two of the three


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


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).


      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

      (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

      (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

      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


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.


      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

       (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).

Table 1.1:  Examples of Studies on Experienced Cumulative
            Effects from Multiple Projects/Activities
            Case Study
 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
 Cumulative effects on benthic
 macroinvertebrates, rooted
 aquatic plants, migrating birds,
 and mink in the ecosystem of the
 upper Mississippi River in the
Wiener, et al. (1995)

Table 1.2:  Types of Cumulative Effects (Council on Environmental Quality,
                       Additive Process
                          Interactive Process
Single Action

        >,, £~ I
                       Type 1 — Repeated
                       "additive" effects
                       a single proposed
                       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
Type 4 -- Effects
arising from multiple
sources that affect
environmental resources
in an interactive
(i.e., countervailing
or synergistic)

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. 	






                        PATHWAYS  THAT  LEAD  TO

                         CUMULATIVE    EFFECTS
  Figure 1.1:
Baaic Functional Pathways That Contrihut* to Cumulatii
Kffecta (Ptttaurson, «t al.r  1987)


      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.


      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

      (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.

     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

       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.

     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

 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.	


Barrow,  C.J.,  Environmental   and  Social  Impact  Assessment.  Arnold
Publishers, London, England,  1997,  pp. 111-113, 156-158, 249-2SC,  296, and

Burris, R.K.,  "Cumulative  Impact  Assessment  in the Environmental Impact
Assessment Process," MSCE  Thesis,  1994,  University of Oklahoma, Norman,

Burris,  R.K.,  and  Canter,  L.W.,   "A Practitioner Survey  of Cumulative
Impact Assessment,"  Impact Assessment. Vol.  15,  No.  2, June, I997b, pp.

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.

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.
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

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,

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.


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*

                                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.


      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.
      (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).


      (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

      (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.


      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


Table  2.1:    Steps  in CEA to be  Addressed  in  Components  of the EIA  Proce
                •'(Council on  Environmental  Quality,  1997a)
                 EIA  Components
                  CEA  Steps
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
         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.

Table 2.2:   CEA  Tasks  Within  the  EZA   Process  (Cumulative  Effects
            Assessment Working Group, 1997)
EIA Steps
1. Scoping
2. Analysis of
3. Identification
of Mitigation
4. Evaluation of
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
• CorflparS results against thresholds or
land use objectives and trends
• Recommend regional-wide monitoring

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

      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.


      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)


                                         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
  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*
                                    S  establlah cause-effect linkages
   assess  significance of  cumulatlv*
           effect* on VECa
                                       undertake cumulative effect*



D. Project-KM
deacribe project and
receiving environment

aetablieh project boundaries

identify environmental effect*
of proposed development and
the VBCe likely to be affected

analyze cumulative effects
assess significance
cumulative effect*


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

      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


 Table  2.3:   Steps  in the CAQEA Method (Rumrill  and  Canter,  1998)
1. select aeri.nj.tion or CE to be
applied to the analysis.
CEQ definition is
2. Determine spatial and temporal
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
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
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
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
Necessary to properly
determine impact
significance. See section
of this paper which
describes a scoring method
for CE significance
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

 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

       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

      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


    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

  .  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.

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.


                           Table 2.5:   Scoring  Matrix  for Air  Quality Cumulative Effect  Significance Determination
                       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
                        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)
                        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
                    Cumulative Trnpflcr iiiign«iiy
                              10%er eait

                             p«iod,> 5 ywi duration,
                                                                    oeoHn In* B mdy

 . rafiucna an «ir pollutiaa tpaaim
 • tevriof public cenoan
 • mflucoaoaPPLpaiaxul
      10% or
        oaVOONOi ratio
      10% or
                                            i to
                                                  5-9% i
Human HttMl

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.


      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.


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,


    Proposed Project
Proposed Project   Past Projects
                                           T        f

                               Current Projects  Future Projects
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)

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.

                                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.


      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,

      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  the  temporal  boundaries  for  a  CEA  study  involves
determining how far in the past to consider  in establishing the historical


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

•     Be prepared to  adjust the boundaries during the assessment  process
      if new information  suggests  that this is  warranted,  and  defend any
      such changes.

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

      (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



       1                   1       '          S
       m                   «                 JJ
       *•                   Lt                 1
       ^                   cu                 S
Figure 3.1:  Terminology for Delineation of Temporal Boundaries

            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

      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).


      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


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

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

Table  3.3:    Legal Issue  Linkages  to  8-Activity  Method  for
                  Determining  RFFAs  (Rumrill and  Canter,  1997)
                       Issue Addressed
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

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








Does not support
Does not support
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.

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

      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

      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.

Detennine Spatial and Temporal
   Boundaries for the CEA
      Activity 7
    Evaluate Significance

   Include RFFA in CEA
VTitiijn fiocDdfiies?
    no-^ Exrinde from Analysis
                                       Activity  3

                                       Activity 4
• Canoected?
                                       Activity 5

                                       ine if Significant]
                                        Activity 6
                                  Detennine Planning Docoment Relationship*

                                  ^	 Rdationsnips Exist?
                                               tirity from analysis
                                         Activit   8
    Figure 3.2:  Decision Flowchart for Determining RFFAa
                    (Rumrill and Canter/ 1997)

      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

      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.


      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.

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
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)
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
17 PropOMdAction/AHwno1iv«-pnKiousnMlals(BLMN)
18 ColosMumMifM-pnKiousnMlab(BLMN)
in f* h 	 j -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

A 0

4 9





3.4^ 89


       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)?

      (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. 

Burria,  R.K.,  and Canter,  L.W.,  "A  Practitioner  Survey  of Cumulative
Impact  Assessment," Impact Assessment. Vol. 15, No. 2, June, 1997b, pp.

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,

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.


                                CHAPTER 4


      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.


      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


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

             (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
             (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)

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


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
             (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

       (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.	

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 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.


      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


 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


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.

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

  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).

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.

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).


       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

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

      (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?

Table 4.4:      Examples  of  Sources of  Information for CEA
                (after  Council on Environmental Quality, 1997)
Schools and
Natural history
• former and present landholders
• long-time residents
• long-time resource users
• long-time resource managers
Local, state, and regional societies could
personal journals
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
• state planning agencies
• state and federal records-keeping agencies
• state and federal surveys
• state and federal agricultural and forestry
• state historic preservation offices
• Indian tribal government planning, natural
resource, and cultural resource offices
• project plans and supporting environmental

       Some sources of information (or approaches) which can be used for
identifying cumulative  effects prior to  or during the  scoping process

      (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

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,

  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
      •     release  of greenhouse gases resulting  in climate
      •     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
      •     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

      (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

   (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

   (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.

      (5)   effect on protected areas;

      (6)   effect   on  threatened/endangered   species,   or   cultural

      (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

      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


Table 4.7:      Example of Decision Matrix for
                Qualitative Review Approach
Decision Criteria*

         the decision criteria is pertinent to the effect or issue, thus
      suggesting the  inclusion of the effect  or issue in  the impact
      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.

            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.


      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

      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).


 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.

 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 •

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.

                                CHAPTER 5

                             METHODS FOR CEA

      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.


      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


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

      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

Table 5.1:  Six Evaluation Criteria for Types of
            Method* (Smit and Spaling, 1995)
TVfffvwMl Accumulation

Type of Perturbation

Functional Change


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.

      (2)   Whether the method van be used tot

                  quantify effects
                  synthesize effects
                  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.


      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


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
- 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)
I*""*"'*1'- ^.L^ ..U..!













D**critx 1
Affected I















DwMo* 1





CmnmuidtMtn* of




    Table 5.3:  Summary of Relative Usage of Types  of Methods
                in the EIA Process
Types of Methods
Decision-focused checklists
Environmental cost-benefit
Expert opinion
Expert systems
Indices or indicators
Laboratory testing and
scale models
Landscape evaluation
Literature reviews
Mass-balance calculations
Monitoring (baseline)
Monitoring (analogs)
Overlay mapping via CIS
Photographs /photomontages
Qualitative modeling
Quantitative modeling
Risk assessment
Scenario building
Trend extrapolation
Relative Usage*















"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.

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

      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


 Table 5.4:   Potentially  Useful  Methodologies   for  CEA   of  Multiple
             Hydroelectric Projects  in a River Basin  (after Stull, et al..
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







ly <






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

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


    Table  5.5:        Features  of Ten  Type*  of Methods for CEA  (Smit  and
                         Spaling,  1995)
ic analysis
Main Feature
map spatial changes
over time
identify core
structure and
interactions of a
analyze structure
and function of
landscape unit
sum additive and
effects; identify
higher order
model behavior of
an environmental
system or system
using professional
use of a priori
criteria to
objective functions
subject to
use ecological
criteria to specify
location and
intensity of
potential land uses
logic framework to
conduct CEA
Mode of
flow diagrams;
group process
(e.g., Delphi,
nominal group
technique )
weighing of
parameters and
ranking of
levels of
health and
sequence of
systems (CIS)
Loop analysis
Sorenson ' s
Argonne multiple
matrix; synoptic
matrix; extended
CXM"; modified
modeling of
forest harvesting
Cause- and-ef feet
tradeoff analysis
Land disturbance
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

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.

Table 5.6    (continued):

                                            *-«^   	* •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 •

Table 5.7:  Primary and Special Method* for Analyzing Cumulative Effects
            (Council on Environmental Quality, 1997a)
Primary Method*
1 OuettiofUttim
Interviews, and PaoeU


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
a>««bi;.t. k.U. L4.,*;fi> 
       Table  5.7  (continued):
 Primary and Special Method*
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
•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
•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

•Uses regional scale and full
range of components and
                                                              •Addresses space and time
                                                              •Addresses ecosystem
•Limited to aatunl syttcmi
•Often require* ipecie*
•tttrogstes for lyBtein
•Data imeiwve
•Ljuidtctpc indicstors still
under dcvdopmeot

       Table  5.7:    (continued):
      Special Methods
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
•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
•Socisl  values are highly

   IRUfVl9Mf§« 4MB
        Ovwter Moping
        •id OSS
                              \      /
Networks end
Sytuma Otegranu
Figure  5.1:
Conceptual Model for  Combining  Primary  Methods  in  a  CEA
(Council on Environmental Quality,  1997a)

            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

       (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


      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


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
      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.

             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).

Hydropower Effect*
Sedimentation and Erosion
Diiturbtnce of Hazardous Wast* Sinks
InUrference with Kih Migration
Allend Stream Flow
Ditniplkm of Food Production and
Inundation of Stream Habilau
Fiahini Area, Opportunity, and Catch
Chanfet in Water Quality
Overharvest of Wild Slocka in a Mixed-
Stock Fiahery
Nonhydropower Acliviliei









l Increased Human Acceat and
Reduction of Aquatic Prey
Lou of Critical Temilrial Wildlife
Lou of Stream Hibitala and Creation
of Open-Water Habitita
Interruption of Movement and
Bird Mortality at Transmission tinea
Degradation of Shoreline Habitala


























                             *  •    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

Figure 5.2:       Combinations of Activities that Can Cause Cumulative Effects
                 in Watersheds (Reid,  1993)

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

            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.      ...     ....

            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
         C  Geasnoaitycoiiipaiiiiaa    S  Oventeepening of slope*      W Impootenovml of water
         D  Disturoaooc fireojoency
         P  Pattern of c

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      .......     .....      .......

    D PlffPpy^** ImgiiaME            .......    A...«      .......
    S  AJtBBd nfl 1UUL1U16             .X....«     .H.. •      .......
    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* ••••»     •••••
       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

    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

                                           Valued environmental
• bed
pairs activities with
measured changes

interactions with a
focus on potential
wwi i ^jwui tun ly,
accumulation and
dispersal processes

j k 1 m
relates changes in
valued components
back to activities

pairs changes with
valued environmental
                        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)

                                                       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.


      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

      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.


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


      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

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.

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

   (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?

       Table 5.13:  Criteria for Choosing Impact Prediction Methods
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

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

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

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

      (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.


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), <*«?)„


      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
      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


Table 5.14:  Example  Information for Selecting an EIA Method
by EIA
for use of
related to
Candidate EIA Methods
Some effort
required to
D (dummy)

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

Table 5.15; Importance* Weighting of Decision Factors
Decision Factor
Acceptability by
EIA regulators
Data requirements
for use of method
related to method
0 11
00 1
0.33 .

Table 5.16:  Relative Choice Coefficients of Candidate Methods
             for "Acceptability by EIA Regulators" Factor
Candidate Method
D (dummy)
0 01
01 1

Table 5.17:
Relative Choice Coefficients of Candidate Methodi
for "Data Requirements for Use of Method" Factor
Candidate Method
D (dummy)
Choice Assignments
0 0.5 1
1 11
0.5 0 1
0 00

Table 5.18: Relative Choice Coefficient* of Candidate Method*
            for "Uncertainty Related to Method" Factor
Candidate Method
D (dummy)
Choice Assignments
0.5 0 1
0.5 0 1
0 00

Table 5.19:  Decision Matrix for Selection of Method
by EIA
for use of
related to
Method (FIC x RCC)
D ( dummy )

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


Barrow,  C.J.,   Environmental  and  Social  Impact  Assessment.  Arnold
Publishers, London, England,  1997,  pp. 111-113, 156-158,  249-250, 296, and

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.


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,

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.

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.

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.

                                CHAPTER 6


      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.


      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

 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-


        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

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,

Forecast Characteristics

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.












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)

       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.


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).


      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


      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


Table 6.4:   Examples of Impact Prediction Techniques Organized by Substantive
            Areas (Canter,  1997a>
       {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	
       (1)    individual source propagation models plus  additive model
       (2)    statistical model of noise based on population
       (3)    noise impact indices	
       (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
       (1)    inventory of resources and effects
       (2)    predictive modeling
       (3)    prioritization of resources     	
       (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


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,
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
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,
• 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
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
Eccles, et al.
Brinson (1988);
Hemond and Benoit
(1988); and Winter
Bunch and Reeves
Court, Wright, and
Guthrie (1994)
Court , Wright , and
Guthrie (1994)
Court, Wright and
Guthrie (1994)
Duncan and Schmalzer
Emery (1986)
ESSA Technologies,
Ltd. (1994)
David Evans and
Associates, Inc.
Johnston (1994)
Irving and Bain
(1989 and 1993)
Risser (1988)

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
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
Lindskov (1986)
Use of indicators—of landscape structure and
function in CEAs for bottomland hardwood forest
wetlands in the southeastern USA
Lee and Gosselink
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
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
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.
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
Vestal, et al.
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.
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)

Table 6.6:  Examples  of  Cumulative  Effects  Prediction  Methods  Used by  Two
            Federal Agencies in the United States (Cooper, 1995)
U.S. Army
Corps of


Type of Project
River channel and
River navigation
Flood control
Land development
Timber sale
Timber sale
Ski area
Timber sales
Prediction Methods
• QUAL-TX (water quality model)
• Habitat Evaluation Procedure (HEP)
(wildlife effects)
• 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)
• Overlay mapping
• Specific water temperature and water
turbidity models
• CE-THERM (reservoir processes model)
• QUAL II (water quality model)
• HEP (wildlife)
• HEC-5 (flood control and
conservat ion )
• Habitat model (for red squirrel)
• Population dynamics model (for red
• RO3WILD model (habitat capability
indices for various wildlife
species )
• Simple Approach Smoke Estimation
Model (air quality effects from
BOISED Model (sediment yields)
Elk Habitat Effectiveness Model
Box model (air quality)
Complex I (atmospheric transport and
dispersion model)
• TRANS PLAN model (transportation
• Forest Equivalent Roaded Area Model
(sedimentation, peak flows, and
changes in channel stability)

     Table 6.7»   Examples  of  Prediction Methods for Cumulative Watershed Effects (Reid,  1993)

Model type
Land use
for uie
Clearcul Are*.
water yield,
peak flow
change alien
water yield and
logging, roads
not specified
water yield
inert tie by
habilil, practice,
elevation, region
use history, area
of each use unit
weighted indices
slides introduce
sediment and
logging, roads
not specified
slide survey,
runoff relative
to roads
use history, area
of each use
Roaded Area
use intensity
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
R I/R4
rales and
eroded sediment
in channels
impact fish
logging, roads
habitat, and fish
use history, use
unil areas,
habitat and fith
all may b«
lodging, roads
water quality,
fish, recreation,
user must
processes and
impacts of region
may use any
process rales
depends on
not specified
depends on
much dm
required for
sum impacts;
change alters
fish survival
not specified
coho imoll
between fish
density and
and habilat
physical process
critical flow
transport alters
not specified
not specified
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)

•n^t^ m.ii.y •»•


Peak flow cfaaafc
Sediment change
^Wmfe^ f^^MM *J***fc
Nuneat change

Cfaaaael itihflhy
Water quality
Fona of resale
ScteBO& basic

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 a z

z • z











z z
z z


(x) x
(x) x
(x) •






           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)

             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,

       (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

       (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

      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


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


  Table 6.9:  Steps for Cumulative Air Quality Effects Assessment
         No. of
 1.  Select  definition of
 to  be  applied to the
CEQ definition is
 2.  Determine spatial and
 temporal  boundaries.
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 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
Not all 16 documents
included both
quantitative and
qualitative analysis.
Emissions inventories
and quantitative air
quality modeling can be
 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
                    Necessary to properly
                    determine impact
                    s ignif icance.
 8.  Include mitigation
 opportunities for CEs when
 discussing specific action
 impact mitigation.
                     Additional mitigation
                     are available when  other
                     activities are
  •Out of 27 documents in the study group
  CE « cumulative effects

 Table 6.10: Comparison between Canter's 6-Step Project-Specific Model and the 8-Steps
 1. Select definition of CE to be
 applied to the analysis.
2. Determine spatial and temporal

3. Determine past, present, and
reasonably foreseeable future
actions to be included in the

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
context with the air quality impacts
of the action originally generating
the N**-PA rpmnrprngnf and
incorporate that significance into the
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

Step 4:  Impact Prediction (technical)
                                             Step 5:   Assessment of Impact
Step 6:  Identification and
         Incorporation of Mitigation

Table 6.11: Indicators  of  Bottomland Hardwood  (BLH) Landscape  Structure  and
            Function (after Lee and Gosselink, 1988)
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
BLH remaining as % of historical or
Size-frequency distribution of BLH
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

      (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

      (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

      (5)   Model  future  changes  in  habitat  characteristics  based  on
            examining  the  influence  of  development  scenarios on  the
            qualitative fish habitat model.

      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.,

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-


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

            (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.

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

            (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.

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

   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


                            Establish geographic
                            boundaries and  scope
                             of  the assessment
          Establish information
              requirements  and
              identify  sources
               of  information
  Design a strategy
for accumulating and
aggregating cumulative
                              Develop models  for
                              estimating  effects
                              to  populations  from
                               effects  on habitat
                           Collect  information and
                            perform single-project
                               and aggregate
                              cumulative effects
                               Apply results to
                            planning and regulation
                               of hydroelectric
Figure 6.1: Flow Diagram of the  ITM  (after Stull,  et al., 1987a)

 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):


Figure 6.2:
Graphical Depiction of Overlapping Project Impact Zone*
and Terms Used in Calculating Interaction Coefficients
(LaGory, Stull, and Vinikour, 1993)

                        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

      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


         Riparian zone



    Project  1
   (0.2 acre less)
                                       Additive cumulative effect •
                                        sum of  individual project effects •
                                        OL2 acres * 
                Project  4
                 lepaet Maerin
               1   2   3  4   S
        Xapact 15  10  12 SO  201
                    ,  I
                    •  3
                    •,  4
                                             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
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)

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


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
>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
>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

Table 6.14: Interaction    Coefficients    and    Criteria    for    the
            Migration/Movement Component of the Chinook Salmon Interaction
            Matrix  (Irving and Bain, 1993)
No project interaction on
migration/movement of target
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	

Figure 6.5:
Example of Cumulative Impact Computation*  for  a Target
Resource with Three Resource Components and Two Projects
(Irving and Bain, 1993)

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.


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

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.

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,

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.

 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-

 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

 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.

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.

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,

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.

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

World  Health  Organization,  "Assessment  of Noise  Impact on  the Urban
Environment," Environmental Health Series No. 9, 1986, Regional Office for
Europe, Copenhagen, Denmark.

                                CHAPTER 7


      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.


      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,

      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


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

      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.

  U«el of pmra

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).

      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.


      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).


      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


Figure  7.2:
Linkages Between El A, SEA, and Related Studies
(Sadler and Verheem, 1996)

                     *••« kf
                                              •  to
                                    i OSfci

Figure   7.3:
Comparison of the Principal Stages in tha SEA and
EIA Processes (Lee and Walsh,  1992)

Table 7.1:  Comparative Features of Project-Level EIA and SZA
            (Wiseman, 1996)
Is reactive to a development
Assesses the effect of a proposed
development on the environment
Addresses a specific project
Has a well defined beginning and
Assesses direct impacts and
Focused on the mitigation of
Narrow perspective and a high
level of detail
Focus on project-specific impacts
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
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

                Environmental Management

             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
Figure  7.4:
Relationships  Between SEA and Project-Specific
Activities (Wiseman,  1996)

Table 7.2:  Examples of Countries with SEA Requirements
European Commission
(12 member countries)
Kong Kong
The Netherlands
New Zealand
United Kingdom
United States of America
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)

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

      (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

      (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

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

      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


 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

       (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

       (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


          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.

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

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,
      (1)   the   definition   of  study  areas   in  terms   which  make
            environmental  sense  (e.g.,  river  basin,  airshed,  coastal

      (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

      (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


            data  collection and  management  during  program  or  project

       (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

       (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

      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):


      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,

                   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*

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.


      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

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

          Table 7.5:  Case Studies Related to SEA
        Category of  Action
(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

Skewes-Cox (1996)*
(S)    Water environment in the
      United Kingdom

(S)    Transportation sector in
      the United Kingdom

(S)    Siting of windfarms in

(S)    Forest management plan in

(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

(P)   Crop insurance policy in
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)

"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

       (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

       (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.

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
      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,
       identify preferred alternative (if possible).


      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

      (8)   lead  to the  measurement  of baseline  information  and the
            prediction and monitoring of Impacts;

      (9)   yield  results that  are repeatable  given  certain  explicit

      (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.


      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;

      (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

      (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;

      (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);

       (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

       (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

       (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).


      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,

      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

      One aspect of impact analysis involves impact prediction.  Examples
of  impact prediction techniques  which  can  be used  in  SEAs  include
(Therivel, 1996):

Table  7.7: Potentially Applicable Methods Associated with SEA Tasks
            (Wood and Dejeddour, 1992)
Deciding if SEA i* necessary
Description of the action cod the environment

Predicting impacts
Determination of impact significance
Description of mitigating measures
Evaluation of alternatives
Determining compatibility with environmental
Reporting assessment findings
Reviewing the report
Consultation and public participation


Implemenution, monitoring and pott-auditing
Use of prescriptive lists, guidelines, thresholds and criteria;
determination of local environmental significance; authority and public
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
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
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).

Table 7.8:  Some Methods for Impact Identification in SEA
            (Sadler and Verheem, 1996)
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.

        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.

Table 7.10: Application  of  Methods to Steps in SEA  (Sadler and Verheem,
        Examples of Methods
  Baseline Study:
      SOE  reports  and  similar
      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
      policy impact matrix
      predictive and simulation
      GISs capacity/habitat analysis
      benefit/cost analysis and
      other economic valuation
      multi-criteria analysis
  Documentation for Decision Making:
      cross-impact matrices
      consistency analysis
      sensitivity analysis
      decision "trees"

       (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

       (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.


      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;

Table 7.11: Methods for Usage in Studies
Types of Methods
Set cv.p. 5*
Expert Opinion
Expert System
Indices or Indicators
Laboratory Testing
Landscape Evaluation
Literature Reviews
Mass Balances
Monitoring (baseline)
Monitoring (field)
Overlay Mapping
Photographs /Photomontages
Qualitative Models
Quantitative Models
Risk Assessment
Scenario Building
Trend Extrapolation
Relative Usaae



    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

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

  Table 7.13:   Specific Versus Integrative Focus of Methods
Types of Methods
in EIA
Decision-focused Checklists
Expert Opinion
Expert Systems
Indices or Indicators
Laboratory Testing
Landscape Evaluation
Literature Reviews
Mass Balances
Monitoring (baseline)
Monitoring (field)
Overlay Mapping
Qualitative Models
Quantitative Models
Risk Assessment
Scenario Building
Trend Extrapolation
Focused on
Impacts Related
to Specific



Focused on
Consideration of





Note: Both columns could be related to CEA as appropriate.

      (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

      (10)  allows more effective consideration of  ancillary or secondary
            effects and activities;

      (11)  facilitates consideration of long range and delayed impacts;

      (12)  allows analysis of the  impacts of  policies which may not be
            implemented through projects.


      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

      (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

      (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.

       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
 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


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

•     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.

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

(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.


      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


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

Need to streamline the process to reduce delay

Belief that  small counties  and rural  towns  should be exempt  from the

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

Need to update and simplify state environmental information

            against which impacts can later be evaluated, but there may be
            political  and economic  difficulties in  establishing these

       (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

       (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

       (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.


      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

       (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,

       (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;

       (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.


 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.

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-

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.

 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,

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-

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-

Verheem, R.,  "Environmental Assessments  at the  Strategic  Level  in the
Netherlands," Project Appraisal. Vol. 7,  No. 3, September,  1992, pp. 150-

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.

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,

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.

                                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

      (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.


      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).

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,
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
Nationwide study of managing radioactive and
hazardous wastes from nuclear defense
activities in the USA
Damman, Grossman, and
Sadar (1995); Dupuis
and Hegmann (1997); and
Zukowsky and Gates
Danman, Cressman, and
Sadar (1995)
Barnes and Hestworth
Bennett (1994)
Bennett (1994)
Antoniuk (1994)
Colnett (1991)
Cada and Huns acker
Court, Wright, and
Guthrie (1994)
Court, Wright, and
Guthrie (1994)
Dupuis and Hegmann
Dupuis and Hegmann
Dupuis and Hegmann
U.S. Department of
Energy (1995a)
U.S. Department of
Energy (1995b)

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
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
Boll weevil cooperative control program in the
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

Table 8.2:  Case Studies Subjected to Systematic Review (after
            Cumulative Effect* Assessment Working Group, 1997)
Alberta-Pacific Pulp Mill
Northern Saskatchewan
Uranium Mines
Cold Lake Oil Sands
Cheviot Coal Mine
Huckleberry Copper Mine
Eagle Terrace Sub-
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
In-situ heavy
Mine (open-pit
Mine (open-pit
base metal)
Major VECs
Water, fish
Water, fish


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

      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


                                              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


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

      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


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
American Kestrel
Pileated Woodpecker
Black-tailed Deer
Roosevelt Elk
Western Terrestrial
Garter Snake
Elk Creek

Net Loss in AAHU's
 AAHU = annualized  average habitat units

                    I        ~"*|snjoi
               V   TEXAS    r"
Figur* 8.2:  Location Map of Montieallo B-2  Study ATM (U.S.  Znvironnwntal
            Protactlon Agency,  1990)

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.


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)
                  Cumulative Impacts
    Regulations require that post-mined lands be
    returned to their approximate original
    contour, no irretrievable commitment and no
    long tern cumulative impacts are
    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.
    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
     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.	
    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.	
    Primary cumulative adverse impact results
    from the loss of wildlife habitat.  This
    loss is considered a major long-term adverse
     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.	

    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.	
    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
    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.
    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.	
    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.	

    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,
    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-
    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.

    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,
    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.

                                    CHAPTER 9
                               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.

    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
        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

           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 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 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

                                   Approximate City Limits
                                   Wind Direction
                            g^^                     ..*$m,
                                             rN.'w^tfsaj^i'.kj" "p-."xk.-M JfBiB ^ilftiy •> 1-' >yff
                                             ?.\.«•.':•:>:-:••• '       ;:i^>>:>:::'.
                                           14,630 m
          Figure 9.1:  Approximate Geographical Area for Analysis

                  Step 2
    mdariesfcrtfacCEA I
    no— V> Exclude from Analysis
    Step 3
    Forecast Future Activities within Boundaries
    Step 4
    FVHhlfltP PiMiiiWtmln*!!.
    Step 6
    Determine Planning Document Rcla
    witfaJQ Bouodanes
    ._ ^ Q»1«Knn«hfrM Tocut?
               Evaluate SifisificaDce
                  Sixnificaot? ~^^   DO
    ->  Exclude activity fionaaalysis
               Include RFFA in CEA
    Figure 9.2:  8^tq)MFFADetenninaiioBMed»od(FjiiniiU^

    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
          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

    Table 9.2:  Sample Calculations for Population 3rd Dwelling Unit Projections
         1. Project Future Populations
         From city giuwtii trends report
        Report shows that the chy has exper
        with no period of decline.
                            steady population increases from 1990 to 1996
    : (1990-1996) = (102,790 - 96,259)76 = 1088 pcoplc/yr
                                                   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
                                     41,541 + 141 -

    used when  considering other media  (water,  soil,  socio-economics,  ere.)
    effects within a complete CEA.
          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  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

    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
          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
    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

    Table 9.3:  1996 Emissions Summary in the Defined Spatial Boundaries
    1 AFB Operation Sources |
    1 Vehicles
    1 T-37Trim
    emission Inventory
    L^tTT'V? Pn£tn^c
    Residential NG Use
    Sub-Total (Ibs)
    PMlOflbsl I
    49146 I
    32 1
    1522 1
    402 1
    6 1
    401 1
    918 1
    19135 I
    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)
    2820 1
    1 City Construction Sources
    • P ttVcrmnis
    1 Sub-Total (Ibs)
    1 Gty Total (tons)
    I Entire Study Area
    1 Total (tons)

    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
          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,
    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
          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

    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

     *  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™
           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

            1996   1997    1998   1999   2000   2001    2002   2003   2004    2005
                     •»—with Construction —>-wahout Construction |
    Figure 9.3:  AFB PM10 Emissions Comparisons

              1996   1997   1998   1999  2000  2001   2002   2003   2004   2005
                          - Ctty+Bn* w/Const
    • City*Bas« w/o Const
    Figure 9.4:  AFB Project Effect on PM10 Emissions in the Study Area

    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
           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)
          PPL * photochemical pollution  level
          ROG • concentration of reactive  organic gases  (to  include VOCs)
          NO,  » concentration of oxides of nitrogen

    Table 9.4: AFB Proposal Effects on AFB Emissions
    Pollutants (%)*
    NOx SOx
    •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)

    Table 9.5:   AFB Proposal Effects on Total Study Area Emissions
    Pollutants (%)'
    NOx SOx
    •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

    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):
    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

    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,

    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
       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)

    Table  9.7:  Calibrated Box Model Results for PM,0
        Using the equation:
        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:
                   With Proposed AFB Activities
    froicctcd AurfoicnT C oncffnt'^8^ on
    Without Piuuosed AFB Activities

                          Emission Source Area (rotated 90° from Figure 1)
                                                        New Box Dimensions
                        Emission Source Area
                                              Area of Concern for Long Range Effect
             Figure 9.5:  Long Range Pollutant Transport Analysis

    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?
    Table 9.8:
                                 Patimrc frtr rufffnlami* A"* Qoaiity Effects
                                                                Cumulative Intensity
                                                 HlghO?	|     Medemeff)
                                                              coon oBdmy tfanufb
                                           10% or
     Anrinatt AirOiuiitV Stttdtflil
           JO Bfllfltfftt. (
     * 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
    Table  9.9  :  Factor Intensity Ratings fbrAFBLevdPMio
            Analysis Data
    Cumulative Intensity
                                             (44.74* Kgbat noted m Tibto 4)
                                            Rfnre 3 tiwm 2 pe«ks of
                                               •fl oanpiiiace itnatt tnct
                                            blf ofttidy p^od (M T«bU 7)
           • viointoo of
          -tevd of public
    BIUJH t OCOIJBPlliy PtOBIflP 1
                                               not* i

    Table 9.10:  Significance Rating for AFB Level PM)0
                                                              - 1
                                                         w*- 1
                                                                    CMMlMlw UM bteMMj (k)
                                                                 Largt Advent - 9
                                                                 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
           H tfff M fi^*""^
           Iml of
          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
    Note Possible range of values -0-
    *Basis is shown in Tabl
    are available elsewhere
    1C /!««••* MflmfifvftMK «r i miti viiifimi
    • 108 (high lord of significance)
    e 9.10; bases for other
    (Rumrill, 1998).
    Total Study Area
    weighted effects
    _ ___•- .— ^— ^— — ^— ^

    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.
          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

                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
          (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.
    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,
    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.

    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,
    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.
    Texas  Natural  Resource  Conservation  Commission  (TNRCC),  Lotus  File
    "STATESUM.EXE,"  Online,  Internet,  accessed  August,  1997.   Available at
    ftp.tnrcc. state,
    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.

                                   CHAPTER 10
                          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

    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.
          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
                PS,  «  contribution of  the  ith pollutant from each PS in the
               NPS|  *  contribution of the ith pollutant from each NPS in the
                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.

      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
                                                                    am  in

          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,
                       TMDL* * EWLA,,, » 'LLA
    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)

    the  ith  pollutant  might  also  be  considered.    These  examples  also
    illustrate an expanded range of mitigation options.
          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
          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.

    Table  10.1:  Fundamental   Principles   for   Planning  and  Operating   Effluent
                       Trading  Programs  (after U.S.  Environmental  Protection Agency,
                                                            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
                                   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
    «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
                                   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
                                   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.

    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
                              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
      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
                               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.
    :nt and public
      participation must be key components of
    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

    Table  10.3:  Types of Trades  in ETPs
      Type of Trade
          Definition (after Podar,  et  al.,  1996)
    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.	
    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.	
    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.	
    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
    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

           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
          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

    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*
    Tndeabk PolluUnt(t)
    Saline water
    _£_ 	 ___ 	
    Total suspended solids, oil and
    grease, lead, and zinc
    ^"t '
    Types of Trades"
    PS- PS
    N PS-NPS
    f '
    rf '
    PS PS,

    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*
    Tradesble Polluiant(i)
    BOD, ammonia
    "• •• i /? v,-. '
    ..& V : » t .
    ''} \r
    ft f ^ ;f
    ' 0 , ' ""
    f" *
    Ife A<
       ' 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
                                            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
                               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.
          appropriate i
    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.

    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 —
          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 
          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
          (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

                the longer time frame, this may prevent water quality in the
                trading area from becoming a constraint to population growth
                and economic development.
          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.
    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.

    Hester, C.L.,  Goodrich-Mahoney,  J.W., and  Herd,  R.S., "Watershed-based
    Effluent Trading, The Environmental Professional.  Vol.  19,  1997, pp. 153-
    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,
    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.

                                   CHAPTER 11
          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,
          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

    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.
          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
           (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
           (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
           (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

    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
           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.

          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
          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

           Table    Examples of  Elements in  a  Cumulative  Effects Monitoring  Program  (after Marcus,  1979)
                                                                                                  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
    (2) Coordinate with governmental agencies already
    conducting monitoring in the are*, or who would be
    intcrciled in monitoring, or have responsibilities related
    • 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
    (4) Determine data requirements for achieving monitoring
    • 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
    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);           .	

           (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

    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
          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.
          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

    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
          (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
          (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.
    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,
    Council on Environmental Quality,  "National  Environmental Policy Act —
    Regulations,* Federal Register. Vol. 43,  No.  230, November 29, 1978, pp.

    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.

                                   CHAPTER 12
                       MITIGATION OF CUMULATIVE  EFFECTS  —
          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
          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).

      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
    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.	

          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;

    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
    •     Urban and tourism development  in sensitive  areas  such  as coastal

           (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.
          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
           (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

                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
          (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
          (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
          (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

    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
          (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

              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:
    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.
    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.

                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
          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
          (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

    Table 12.4: Examples of Field Methods/Techniques  Useful for Determining
                Baseline Conditions for Biodiversity (World Bank, 1997}
    Ecosystem/habitat level
    • Distribution, richness and
    diversity of habitats and
    • Patchiness,
    connectivity/ fragmentation
    of habitat ( s ) /ecosystem ( s ) ;
    corridors; fragile habitats
    and ecosystems
    • Carrying capacity and
    community dynamics
    • 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
    pecies level
    Methods /Techniques
    • Inventories, field surveys,
    demographic analysis; use
    of biological indicators
    and indices (species
    sensitive to changing
    • Inventories, field surveys

          (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
          (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
          (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

          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
          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

                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-
          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

                                  Table  12.5.  J^^ndationa  for Agency  Improvements  Related to  Biodiversity  Considerations in  the
                                                     NEPA  Process  (Council  on  Environmental  Quality,  1993}	
                                    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.
     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.
          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,
          (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

                adaptation  of management  practices  represent  a  desirable
          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

    should   also  include   the   consideration   of  ecosystem   management
          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

     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

    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
          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

    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

    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)

          (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.
          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.
    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.

    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.
    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.

    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.

                                   CHAPTER 13
                         COMPUTER-BASED TECHNOLOGIES FOR
          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.
          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

    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-
          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

    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
           (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

    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
      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.

            Table  13.2:   Examples  of  Internet-related Information
    Environmental Guide to
    the Internet  (Briggs-
    Erickson and Murphy,
    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
    Recycling and Haste
    Management Guide  to  the
    Internet  (Guttentag,
    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.
    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.,
    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,
    Book focused on safety and health issues
    within industry, including items related to
    Official Internet
    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.

    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
          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
          The Council on  Environmental Quality  (CEQ)  in the  United States
    activated a Web site called NEPANet in  March, 1995 (httpr//
    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  (   Table 13.5 summarizes  the
    type of information available on the DOE NEPA Web site (Jessee, 1998).

    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)
     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
     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
     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	

         Table 13.4:  Topical Contents of NEPANet as of June 10, 1996
    •    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
         *   40 Most Frequently Asked Questions
         *   Guidance Regarding the NEPA Regulations
         '   Pollution Prevention
    POLICY ACT  (a report)
    •    1996 Annual  Report of the CEQ (coming  soon)
    •    25 Anniversary Report of the CEQ  (1994-95)
    •    1993 Annual  Report of the CEQ
         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 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.
    •   National Association of Environmental  Professionals (NAEP)
    •   International Association for Impact Assessment (IAIA)

    Table 13.4:   (continued)
          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 Case Law Review
      •    NEPA Bibliography
      •    CEQ Compendium of NEPA Training
      •    Duke University NEPA Courses
      •    USDA Graduate School  (available soon)

    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.	_^

          "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  (
    and   the   USGS's   "Water   Resources   of   the  United   States"   site
    (   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  (
          (2)    decision process guidebook of the  U.S. Bureau  of Reclamation
          (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  (
          (4)    National Marine Fisheries  Service
          (5)    Canadian Department of Fisheries and Oceans
          (6)    water  resources software  from the  U.S. Geological Survey
          (7)    new publications of the U.S. Geological  Survey
          (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  (
          (11)    jobs  page  of  the  National  Ground   Water   Association
          (12)    Water Science and Technology Board of the National Academy of
                 Science/National Research Council  (http: //www_2.nas. edu/wstb)

    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
     ACCESS EPA:  An Environmental Directory
     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  (
     This homepage contains many links to EIA, environmental issues,  and
     environmental auditing and management sites.	
     Australian BIA Network  (
     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)
     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
     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  (
     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.

    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 (
     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 (
     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
     Environmental Route Net (
     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
     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.	

    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
     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
     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. (
     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  (
     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)
     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. (
     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)
     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.
      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)
      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
      ISO 14000 (
      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://
     An alphabetical index and listing of pertinent chemical  and safety
     information arranged in an easy to view format can be found at  this
      NABP (
      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 (
      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) (
      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: //
      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.	;	______

    Table 13.6:   (continued)
     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  (
     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  (
     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
     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)
     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 (
     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
     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

    Table 13.6:   (continued)
     U.S.  Environmental Protection Agency and Purdue University  Software
     for Environmental Awareness (
     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
     World Bank Homepage (
     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
     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.                           	

    Table 13.7: Additional  Potentially Useful  Web  Site Addresses   (Davis,
                          Government Agencies/ Program*
     U.S. Department of the Interior  (
     National Wetlands Inventory  (
     U.S. Bureau of Reclamation  (
     U.S. Environmental Protection Agency—solid wastes
     U.S. Environmental Protection Agency—pesticides  and toxic  substances
     U.S. Environmental Protection Agency--Superfund
        ( und/)
     U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission  
         (13)   National  Aerial Photography Program Online  Database  of the
                U.S.  Geological  Survey  (
         (14)   remediation Web site of  the U.S.  Army Environmental  Center
         (15)   on-line resources related to ground water
                 (www.groundwater  .com)
         (16)   United Nations  Environment Program (
          Five Web sites related to soil and ground water remediation include
    (Strock, 1998):
          (1)   TechKnow  (
          (2)   Clu-In, Hazardous Waste Clean-up Information
          (3)   Research  Center for  Groundwater Remediation Design  (RCGRD)
          (4)   Ground Water Remediation Technologies  Analysis Center
          (5)   Remediation Information Management System  (RIMS)
          Pollution prevention information which could be used in EIA can also
    be found on the Web.   Three  examples of Web site addresses include  (Petty,
          (1)   solvent alternatives guide  (SAGE)  (
          (2)   coating alternatives guide (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 (
          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

     entered in NBAS can then be used to develop statistics and reports  related
     to the EIA process.                             .  . i     vs
          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
                •     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
    ( .   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 ( .
    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.

    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.	

    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.	

          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
           (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:
           (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
           (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

           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:
    (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

                 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
          (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:
        .      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:
          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
          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

                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:
          (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:
          (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.
                      Systech  Engineering,  Inc.
                      3180 Crow Canyon Place
                      Suite 260
                      San Ramon, CA 94583
                      Telephone:  925-355-1780
                      Web site:
          (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
          Opportunities for using computer-based technologies for information
    procurement and communication within  the  EIA process are  expanding and

    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
          (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
    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.

      Bahorsky,   R.,  editor,   Official  Internet  Dictionary:    A Comprehensive
      Reference for Professionals. Government Institutes, Rockville, Maryland.
      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 (
      International  Association for  Impact Assessment,  "Environmental  Impact
      Assessment  (EIA)  Training Course  Database,"  1998, Fargo, North  Dakota
      ( .
      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.

    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.              —

    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,
    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.

                                   CHAPTER 14
          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.
          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

    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,

        Table  Substantive CEA  Issues  Needing  Improvement  and  Approaches  for  Addressing  Them
                            (after  Cooper  and  Canter,  1997a)
                                                    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
    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
          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
          (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
          (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

                 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
           (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
           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

    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
           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
          (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.

    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.	.

          (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.
          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:
    (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
    (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
    (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

                 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
    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.

     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.