Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) Planning Process

Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) Planning ProcessCHAPTER 1 excogitationEnvironmental Impact Assessment (EIA) is 20 year old tool for environmental management, non financial support up to its full potential. (Mudge, 1993).This chapter describes the Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) intend fulfil as naturalizedly render in subsequent EIA texts and transmitlines. EIA characteristics and objectives ar first presented beca theatrical role EIA prep process characterisations are interdependent with assumed EIA characteristics and objectives. pursuance the depictions of EIA characteristics, EIA objectives and the EIA invention process vary greatly from source to source. These variations are to a greater consequence the result of the varying perspectives of contrastive authors than cl advance(prenominal) defined schools of thought. Although, there has been a pro- process of paygrade over the past 2 decades, there as nearly as are many instances where elements sugg ested in earlier works charter not been incorporated into roughly recent portrayals.This overview of the conventional EIA mean process is a point of departure for the modifications and refinements discussed in later(a)r chapters of this research. Also, the conventional portrayals of EIA characteristics, EIA objectives and the EIA planning process will be revisited in later chapters, taking compute of combined implications. The interest are EIA characteristics as commonly depicted in introductory EIA literature and guidelinesAs a domain of a function of study EIA draws upon many social and natural science disciplines (Jain, urban and Stacey, 1977). Drawing upon diverse disciplines is necessary to assure the monumental aspects of the environment in order to predict how those environmental attri besideses whitethorn deviate over beat with and without a proposed serve Boundaries between, and links to both traditional disciplines and to other transdisciplinary and transprofe ssional fields such(prenominal)(prenominal) as planning (Lawrence 1992). EIA must transcend individual disciplines if a holistic image of the environment with and without a proposed activeness(s), is to be presented. Hence, EIA should not be viewed as a transdisciplinary field.EIA consist of structural admittancees and set of influences in order to ensure that environmental factors are considered in planning and last making (Clark1981a). In this regard EIA is a normative procedure that seeks to identify natural and social environmental norms or ethical standards and to infuse these into planning and decision making.In the definition of Environmental Impact Assessment, the impact element is often prefaced by one or more dimensional distinctions, such as positive and negative (Mitchell and Takheim 1977 Rau and Wooten 1980) time ( short term, long term, frequency, duration) space (on-site, off-site) unionize and indirect, quantitative and qualitative individual and cumulative and l ikelihood of occurrence (Rau and Wooten 1980). While the assessment component of EIA implys depth psychology synthesis and management- Analysis involves data collection and compilation, the identification of likely environmental conditions and interactions among environmental conditions and systems (Mm 1979 Munro et. al 1986 Amour 1990 Erickson 1994) und the translation, measurement and prediction of likely effects and interactions among effects. Synthesis includes the interpretation of the significance of pretends and interactions among them (Munn 1979 CEARC l988b) and the aggregation and evaluation of individual and cumulative effects (Cumulative Environmental Assessment CEA) both with and without mitigation (Westman 1985 Lang and Annour 1981 Armour 1990 Erickscm 1 994 Shoanaka 1994). circumspection includes mitigation (Jain, Urban and Stacey 1977) compensation and local benefits (Amour 1990), the management of residual impacts (CEARC 1988b), monitoring and contingency measur es, and communications/ hearing activities (CEARC 1988b).In summary, EIA is a process that identifies, predicts, evaluates and manages the potential (or real) impacts of proposed (or existing) human activities on both the human and natural environment. The EIA planning process includes analysis, synthesis, management, communications and consultation activities. The consequences of such activities and their motleynatives will result in unique(predicate) impacts.Underlying EIA serve are usually implicating application assumptions. Formal or in gradational institutional mechanisms are, for example, anticipated to be in place to help to compel, or at least facilitate earth or private proponents to part and complete an EIA planning process and the necessary documentation, as a privilege to pick up approval. Along with perquisite methods it is expected that a systematic planning process can be devised or adapted for analysing and synthesizing the entrance data and for involving r elevant agencies and the public.Further assumed that there is appropriate expertise to tackle the necessary skilful work and to redirect examination whatever the outcomes of the planning process there is a priming coat for choosing among alternative plans and for deciding if an undertaking should or should not proceed the people who make the decision will rationally use the instruction provided to guide their actions the requirements for approvals can be compeld and the impacts managed if unforeseen impacts occur the contingency measures can be instituted. These application assumptions have been increasingly challenged in the EIA literature and in decision of moves and hearing panels and boards. The expectation that friendship and expertise are sufficient may be especially dubious in situations characterised by emerging technologies, poorly understood environments and complex inter relationships within and among proposed actions and components of the environment.The extensi on of EIA from the conceptual to the utilize pre-supposes that EIA must also be a transprofessional field of practice, EIA comprises of a core body of knowledge, skills and methods. Social and natural sciences provide the sign knowledge base- EIA seeks to integrate and, thereby transcend, the inputs and insights of a range of professions with expertise m the proposed action, the environment and their interactions, within a public insurance policy setting. Frameworks, procedures and methods have been formulated and refined through practice, which over the years, has resulted in the emergence of EIA as a recognized area of expertise.EIA is a planning tool (Bisset 1983 Clark l93a Smith 1993). It is a form of applied policy analysis or more specifically, a form of resource management and environmental planning (Smith 1993). Consequently, the formulations and applications of environmental planning processes is one aspect of EIA. It, therefore, tends to be assumed that the EIA plannin g process should be antecedent (prior to decision-making), systematic or orderly and rational. The results and conclusions from the EIA planning process should also be documented, in the main in the form of an EIA report or statement.EIA is a generic planning process intended to contri howevere environmental training to decision-making. It provides a regulatory basis for forcing the explicit consideration of environment concerns by public and private decision makers. As such EIA forms a part of the institutional fabric through legislation, public policy or administrative procedures. Institutionalisation requires mechanisms to prepare, review and document the process, to coordinate inter-agency and private/public interactions, to adjudicate disputes and to monitor and enforce compliance.This utterance therefore takes up this theme to investigate the effectiveness of EIA in the Skye Bridge project by considering the planning process and by using literature review as a means of ana lysis and research.CHAPTER 2 LITERATURE REVIEWOn July 3, 1988, European Union (EU) leading 85/337/EEC ( directing) came into force and as a result, Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) became a part of the EUs environmental egis plans. The Directive requires that out front consent is given for the development of definite public and private projects that are likely to have noteworthy effects on the environment, an assessment of those effects must be compiled and considered by the developer and the authority in excite of approving the projects. By asking decision-making authorities to ponder likely environmental harm before the harm occurs, the Directive promotes a policy of preventing environmental harm. The comprehensive effectiveness of mandating pre-consent environmental impact assessment is undercut, however, because the Directive textually exempts theatre of operations field defensive measure projects from its process. This study suggests that the European Union coul d and should include interior(a) defense projects in its EIA honor. originate I of this Chapter will provide a summarized, chronological evolution of environmental policy in the European Union. Part II will give a description and history of EIA police force, including that of the linked States, so as to provide a comparative and contrasting point of reference. Part III will propose a way by which the European Union can more fully live up to the arrest approach that it has espoused for environmental vindication by requiring environmental impact assessments for national defense projects. This Chapter concludes that the inclusion of national defense projects in the EUs EIA virtue would broaden the scope and effectiveness of EIA law and environmental protection generally.2.1. historic AND LEGAL DEVELOPMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT LAW2.1.1. The Evolution of Environmental Policy in the EU The 1957 treaty of Rome (Treaty), which naturalized the European Economic assoc iation, focused on the asylum of a common-trade zone. Accordingly, the Treaty failed to make any explicit statements regarding policies for environmental protection. In fact, until 1987, all EU environmental protection legislation was introduced via the general language of one or both of deuce Treaty articles that only implicitly recognized EU authority over environmental issues in penis States. oblige 100 of the Treaty calls for the harmonization of laws touch the common market in subdivision States. clause 235 authorizes measures that prove necessary to gain one of the objectives of the Community absent a specific delegation of authority by the Treaty. Although the Articles make no explicit reference to environmental issues, they have been used as authority for certain environmental regulations. For example, Article 100s allusion to issues affecting the common market was used as the authority to develop legislation that regulated output and industry standards across the EU. On the heels of the increased environmental awareness that swept the globe in the late 1960s, the European Community initiated the European Community exercise Programmes on the Environment. The first of these five-year programmes, covering the years from 1973 to 1977, established principles and priorities for future environmental policies. The second five-year programme (1977-1981) established a list of eleven principles and actions to be interpreted in order to move closer to the goal of environmental protection. The list included the decision-making tool of environmental impact assessment. The first two Action Programmes had a common theme of protecting human health and the environment by controlling pollution problems. The third five-year Programme (1982-1986) solidly shifted the emphasis of environmental policy from one of pollution control to one of prevention and integration of environmental issues into other European Community policies. Not surprisingly, it was during the e ra of the Second and Third Action Programmes when Directive 85/337/EEC, an inherently preventative and combine piece of legislation, was first proposed and then accepted. The Fourth Action Programme (1987-1992) continued the trend of prevention besides proceeded further beyond its predecessors by stressing the vastness of using stringent environmental standards in regulating the activities of Member States.The evolution of environmental policy in the EU took a crucial step on July 1, 1987 when, in conjunction with the adoption of the Fourth Action Programme, the Community adopted the Single European Act. The Act, which consisted of amendments to the Treaty of Rome, contained articles that specifically affected environmental policy. Article 100A recognized the relationship between promotion of the common market and protection of the environment by authorizing the EU to adopt environmental legislation on the basis that such issues affect the marketplace. Article 130R lays out the o bjectives of future Community action relating to the environment by formalizing the principles of prevention, subsidiarity, polluter pays, and nigh importantly, integration. Article 130T reconfirms that individual Member States may enact environmental legislation that is more stringent than, but is compatible with, that of the Community.The evolution of environmental policy in the EU from the 1957 Treaty of Rome through the various Action Programmes and to the Single European Act exemplifies the European Communitys commitment to a preventative approach to environmental protection. EIA law stands as a hallmark of that preventative approach. The EUs commitment to the comprehensive prevention of environmental degradation is tested, however, by the limitations of its own EIA law.2.1.2. Environmental Impact Assessment Law A Description and proportional Study2.1.2.1. EIA A General OverviewThe essential structure of EIA law is common to all the nations that use it. Generally, EIA law is a process intended to minimize or prevent environmental damage that is usually associated with the construction and operation of certain development projects. Usually in the form of legislation, regulations and/or administrative processes, EIA law requires that certain development projects, while still in a planning stage, be analyzed in terms of their potential inauspicious impacts on the environment. Developers and/or governmental bodies, depending on the particularities of the EIA law in question, must conduct an analysis, or assessment, of the environmental effects of certain projects. The public authority responsible for granting or denying consent to the project is asked to take into account the results of the assessment. Again, depending on the particularities of the EIA law in question, provisions are made for public divine revelation of the assessments, as well as for public involvement in the authoritys decision-making process.The EIA process plays four important roles i n protecting the environment. First, EIA law gives concrete, practical effect to environmental policy language that is often broad, general and otherwise absent of specific mandates. The U.S. Congress, in formulating its declarations of environmental policy, included EIA so as to insure that the policies enunciated . . . are implemented. EIA helps to insure proper execution of policies by requiring the formulation and submission of written assessment reports, demonstrating an affirmative compliance with the environmental concerns outlined in policy language. A second role for EIA is to provide an analytical decision-making tool that institutionalizes foresight. It asks the decision-making authority to look beyond the moment and to incorporate into its decision the possible irreversible future effects a project may have on the environment. Third, to the extent that EIA affirmatively asks developers and decision-makers to account for the social and economic costs resulting from their actions, EIA forces the internalization of those costs and consequences that competency otherwise go unaccounted for. The final role that EIA plays is as a public-awareness measure. Most EIA processes allow for public apocalypse of development plans, as well as for public participation in the decision-making process. In the words of professor Nicholas Robinson, EIA facilitates democratic decision making and consensus building regarding new development.For EIA to incorporate environmental norms into decision making, it must call off both environmental ethics and values and human ethics, values, perceptions, beliefs and attitudes. It is an objective procedure for identifying, measuring and predicting environmental attributes and changes brought somewhat by existing or proposed actions, but is subjective in the interpretation, aggregation and management of those changes. Although driven by an environmental ethic, the links between EIA and ethical theory in general and environment al ethics in particular, have been tenuous at best. The tendency has been to assume that concepts and methods developed to predict and explain environmental change provide a sufficient knowledge base.The practice of EIA involves, usually implicit assumptions regarding the known environment, environmental impacts and environmental norms. It is, for example, generally assumed that aspects of the environment and their inter- relationships can be identified, described or measured and monitored changes, with or without a proposed action can be predicted to the extent that cause-effect relationships can be established stakeholders values can be determined measures of impact magnitude and importance can be combined individual and cumulative environmental consequences can be interpreted, aggregated and managed end issues of probability of uncertainty can be managed sufficiently to find out whether a proposed action should proceed and, if so, then, in what fashion. These knowledge assumptio ns are questionable, especially in the subjective realm of conflicting values, perceptions and human behaviour.The primary focus of EIA was initially on the physical and natural environment and, to a lesser extent, on the socio economic consequences of physical and natural environmental changes. The environmental aspect of EIA now generally embraces both natural (physical, biological and ecological) and human (human health and well being, social, cultural, economic built) environmental components and systems (Wiesner, 1995) and their inter relationships (Jain, Urban and Stacey, 1977 Estrin and Swaigen, 1978 CEARC, 1988b). There are many opinions regarding whether social impact assessment (SIA) or socio-economic impact assessment is or should be a sub-field of EIA (Morris and Therive1, 1995).A broad definition of the environmental EIA facilitates a more comprehensive approach to environmental management but it leaves open the possibility that certain elements of the environment will not puzzle pertinent attention. The question of how best to integrate social, ecological and economic data and perspectives remains unresolved. Human actions alter the environment (Jain, Urban and Stacey 1977 Mitchell and Turkheim 1977). In EIA, the term impact generally refers to the accepted environmental consequences (Meredith 1991) of a proposed action or set of actions (Rau and Wooten 1980) and less frequently to the actual consequences of an existing activity. Distinctions also are often emaciated between changes or effects (measures of magnitude) and impacts (measures of magnitude in combination with measures of importance), between alternations of environmental conditions or the creation of a new set of environmental conditions, and between environmental conditions changes caused or induced by actions (Rau and Wooten 1980).Although the traditional focus of EIA has been capital projects, EIA requirements are increasingly applied to legislative proposals, policies, programs , technologies, regulations and operational procedures (Munn 1979 Estrin and Swaigen 1978 CEARC 1988b). The expectation that the conceptual basis for EIA largely developed at a project level can be readily elongate and applied to policies, programs and technologies is questionable. At the policy and program level the range of inter related choices tends to multiply, impacts tend to be more generic and less amenable to precise prediction and EIA overlaps with policy and program evaluation, planning and environmental and resource management.A distinction is sometimes drawn between project level EIA und the strategic environmental assessment (SEA) of policies, plans and programs (Sadler 1995). Risk assessment, technology assessment and environmental health impact assessment are viewed as either subfields within EIA (Sadler 1995) or as distinct fields that partially overlap with EIA in most subject fields EIA applies to the actions of both public and private proponents (Meredith 1991 Mitchell and Tuclcheh 1977). Alternative methods of achieving a proposed end and of managing the impacts associated with a partial choice are also usually considered in an EIA planning process.2.1.2.2. A Comparative Study The United States Experience with EIA The large history of EIA law began with the passage in the United States of the National Environmental Policy Act (genus Nepa) of 1969. genus Nepa was brought about as an instrument of policy and planning (Roberts, 1984a). Among genus Nepas eloquent but broad declarations of environmental policy is a brief section mandating EIA law for certain projects, thus providing a set of teeth with which to enforce the writtens policies. class 102(2) of the Act requires all federal agencies to prepare and include an environmental impact statement (EIS) with all(prenominal) recommendation or proposal for major Federal actions significantly affecting the quality of the human environment. The importance and weight of this requirement, as well as the problems inherent in defining its triggering terms, are demonstrated by the fact that the EIS clause has spawned nearly all case law brought under NEPA. Much of NEPA case law has dealt with the issue of whether projects involving national defense and national security are subject to compliance with Section 102(2), and juridical review of such compliance. The environmental, public-awareness and army interests at stake in these cases are reflected by two questions. First, will compliance and judicial review compromise the orphicity of matters regarding national security? Second, will compliance and judicial review compromise the ability of the military to proceed with projects, which while detrimental to the environment, are crucial to the defense of the country? In answering these questions, it is important to note that NEPA calls for EISs from all agencies of the Federal Government the statute does not provide a textual exception for national defense or security pr ojects. condescension the clear language of the statute, however, U.S. courts have struggled with the issue and are currently responding in a manner that runs prognosticate to the language and true intent of NEPA.Most court decisions find that NEPA-based claims over against projects involving national defense interests are justifiable. archaeozoic cases, however, were ambiguous in answering questions of whether such projects must comply with NEPA requirements and whether EISs for such projects are subject to judicial review of their legal sufficiency. For instance, in the early case of McQueary v. Laird, the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals dealt with a NEPA challenge to a military project by claiming lack of jurisdiction. In another early case, Citizens for Reid State Park v. Laird, the U.S. regularise Court for the Southern District of Maine found that NEPA applies to all federal agencies, including the division of Defense. The Court in Citizens for Reid State Park refused to require an EIS for the naval forces project in question, however, because it found that the plaintiff citizens group had failed to prove that the Navy plans constituted a major project significantly affecting the environment. Later court decisions often allowed national defense projects to proceed without an EIS or judicial review of an EIS, not because the courts believed that such projects did not have to comply with NEPA, but merely because the courts found that major federal action or significant effects on the environmentrequirements necessary to trigger NEPA were absent.In cases where major federal actions having significant effects on the environment were found to exist, compliance with NEPA was required despite national security interests. In Committee for Nuclear Responsibility, Inc. v. Schlesinger, for example, the Supreme Court refused to issue an injunction for violation of NEPA, but the Courts rushed decision upheld a Court of Appeals finding that the Atomic Energy Co mmission did have a judicially reviewable duty to comply with NEPA requirements in spite of national security considerations. In forward Animal Welfare Society v. Department of Navy, the Western District Court of Appeals of Washington found that the Navys plan to use dolphins in a military project was a major federal action with significant environmental impact accordingly, a NEPA EIS was required for the project. Finally, in Concerned about Trident v. Rumsfeld, the Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia found that the Navys plans for a submarine support zeal required compliance with NEPA to the fullest extent possible. The court found that the Navys own internal environmental impact statement was insufficient to fulfill the requirements of NEPA. In making its decision, the court, citing judicial precedent as well as NEPAs lack of a textual military exception, rejected the Navys argument that NEPA could not possibly apply to strategic military decisions. The court declared that the Navys plans were subject to NEPA requirements despite the projects serious national security implications. In 1981, the Supreme Court again addressed the issue of the militarys compliance with NEPAs EIA mandate. In Weinberger v. Catholic Action of Hawaii, the Court refused judicial review of the Department of Defenses compliance with NEPA in a matter of national security. The dispute began with the Navys plan to construct a weapons and ammunition holding facility capable of storing nuclear weapons in Ohau, Hawaii. The Navys internal assessment concluded that the facility would not have significant impact on the environment and as such, a NEPA EIS was unnecessary. The Navys assessment, however, failed to include an analysis of the facilitys impact on the environment should nuclear weapons actually be stored at the site. The district court that first reviewed the case found that the Navy had complied with NEPA to the fullest extent possible.The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals transposed the decision of the district court, arguing that an EIS was necessary and feasible since it would not necessarily release confidential matters. all important(p) to the court was the fact that the Navy had already made the nuclear capabilities of the facility public knowledge. The court went on to suggest a hypothetical approach to writing EISs that would protect national security, environmental concerns, and public disclosure interests. Judge Merrill wrote that under this hypothetical approach, the Navys EIS must evaluate the hypothetical consequences of storing nuclear weapons at the site but it need not imply that a decision to actually store nuclear weapons had been made. The court argued that since the public was already aware of the capability of the facility to store nuclear weapons, a hypothetical EIS that discussed the impact of such storage, but not whether it would actually occur, would not reveal anything the public did not already know. Further, it would al low the Navy and the decision-making authority to consider the true and potential costs and consequences of proceeding with the project. Finally, the Court stated that a hypothetical EIS would assure the public that the decision-making process had fully accounted for the projects externalities and consequences.On review, the Supreme Court reversed the Court of Appeals notional approach to balancing the interests at stake. The Court, discrediting the Ninth Circuits notion of a hypothetical EIS, refused to mandate a NEPA EIS because it believed that doing so would reveal confidential matters of national security. In the majority opinion, Justice Rehnquist outlined the current spot of the law regarding military compliance with EIA law in the United States. He wrote that public policies favoring the protection of confidential information regarding national security ultimately forbids judicial scrutiny of whether or not the Navy has complied with NEPA to the fullest extent possible. Ju stice Blackmun, who concurred with the judgment of the Court, was joined by Justice Brennan in stressing that although the Defense Department may disseminate EISs in a manner that protects confidential matters, it is still bound by the obligations of NEPA.2.1.2.3. A Comparative Study The European Unions Experience with EIASixteen years after NEPA took effect in the United States and after five years of consideration in the European Union, Environmental Impact Assessment law was officially incorporated into the statutory framework of the EU on June 27, 1985. Directive 85/337 mandates EIA for certain projects such as those involving crude-oil refineries, thermal and nuclear power stations, motorway construction and dangerous waste landfills. It also requires EIA to be performed in conjunction with those other projects that Member States find have a significant effect on the environment due to the projects particular characteristics. The specific legal authority for the Directive is de rived from Articles 100 and 235 of the EEC Treaty. The Directive also cites to the first three Action Programmes for their policies of preventing environmental harms at the source rather then toilsome to counteract environmental degradation once it occurs.The procedure called for by the Directive identifies, describes and analyzes the effects a development project may have on humans, fauna, flora, soil, water, air, climate, landscape, welfare and cultural heritage. The EIA must contain a description of the project in question, an outline of the main alternatives to the project, the reason for choosing the proposed plans, a description of the significant effects the project will have on the environment, and a description of the measures that must be taken to avoid, reduce or compensate for those effects. Because developers have the best knowledge of the nature of their proposal, they have the responsibility of gathering the information and hive away the EIA. The decision-making aut horities who have the power of giving consent to the developers plans have the responsibility of setting standards for approval or disapproval and ensuring that the developers EIA complies with the law. Further, they are obligated, by statute, to incorporate the EIA into their decision-making process. Also, Article 10 of the Directive states that the authorities must assess existing regulations and practices regarding industrial and commercial secrecy. Finally, the Directive envisions an active role for the public. In addition to supplying the decision-makers with information regarding the impact a project will have on the local environment, the public may have an opportunity to suggest alternatives and to pursue judicial action in order to request a review of consent. Further particularities of public participation and involvement are to be determined by the individual Member States.2.1.2.4. The National Defense Project Exception to Directive 85/337/EECThe effectiveness of the Dir ective in preventing environmental harms is undercut by the exception it gives to national defense projects. It is reasonable to infer that this exception reflects two assumptions. The first assumption, explicitly mentioned in the Directive, is that national legislative processes will ensure that defense projects comply with the Directive. No rationale is provided for this assumption except for the implied reasoning that national legislators share the concerns of the Directive and are able to guide national legislation accordingly. The second assumption appears to be that the confidentiality of Member States national security matters would be compro