Environmental assessment handbook

->>>> Click Here to Download <<<<<<<-

Chapter 3: Objectives for, of and in strategic environmental assessment: UK practice as an example Samuel J. Hayes and Thomas B. Chapter 5: Territorial impact assessment: a policy assessment-like strategic environmental assessment in action Naja Marot , Thomas B. Chapter 8: Does strategic environmental assessment lead to more environmentally sustainable decisions?

Reflections on its substantive effectiveness Thomas B. Fischer and Francois P. Chapter 9: Guidelines for strategic environmental assessment in developing countries: examples from Asia David Annandale , Thomas B. Chapter Strategic environmental assessment in the water sector Stephen Eric Mustow. Chapter Integration through strategic environmental assessment: the case of health in English strategic planning Thomas B.

Fischer , Tara Muthoora and Nicola Sworowski. Another - strategy is the control of construction impacts through measures such as restoring disturbed soils immediately, and continually cleaning up debris.

An additional approach involves proper operating procedures, such as adequate treatment and disposal of sludge to minimize odors. Using cost sharing, techniques such as minimum tillage and stream bank fencing were emphasized. Secondary impacts can have long-term consequences that often are difficult to predict and correct.

Efforts to control them are relatively recent. The EPA has identified a range of possibilities for dealing with sdcondary impacts. The list includes: project changes such as a reduction in treatment plant capacity; land use regulations such as zoning and subdivision ordinances to protect water quality; restrictions on the number and type of sewer hook-ups.

A more controversial approach for mitigating adverse impacts involves multiple use activities, such as wastewater treatment facilities used for recreational purposes. Adoption Feasibility Identifying possible techniques is only the initial step.

Just as important is the feasibility of implementing a particular mitigation measure. Especially difficult are adverse secondary impacts that are not easily mitigated through technological fixes.

Land use controls such as zoning and floodplain ordinances are usually needed. Communities concerned with stimulating economic development may be unresponsive to land use controls.

Even the local land use plans may be inadequate for particular mitigation measures. Therefore, plans and enforcement should be reviewed carefully to determine their effectiveness and feasibility for various mitigation measures.

Two other important factors are monetary cost and timing. A major consideration is the cost to the community of implementing a technique. Some measures, such as the reduction of a service area, may actually bring down project costs. Others, such as using existing trees for screening, may have no effect on cost. For the community, grant-eligible expenditures are as important as the total costs.

Some mitigating actions, such as extending an outfall an extra yards, may make the item grant eligible.

Measures that are considered innovative or alternative technologies can reduce the local share of design and construction costs by forty percent! However, some mitigating costs, such as acquiring wetlands to discourage future development, may not be eligible for federal grants. Timing is also a key element in implementation. Mitigation measures should be considered early in the planning process, soon after impacts are identified.

Once the engineering designs are completed, or construction is underway, it may be extremely difficult to make changes. Implementation and Enforcement Responsibility An equally important matter is who will have the responsibility for implementing mitigation measures.

The planning agency must have the capacity to coordinate the efforts of the many organizations and individuals that are involved. For example, the facility contractor may build erosion and sediment control structures such as detention basins.

However, an official usually conducts an inspection. The planning agency itself may be responsible foi ongoing maintenance. The local government generally has the responsibility of implementing land use controls. A facilities plan for North Monterey called for the mitigation of construction, operation, and growth-related impacts.

Over 16 agencies and organizations were identified for possible implementation roles. However, areawide and regional arrangements may be troublesome. One community or organization may be planning on the behalf of several others.

Since several jurisdictions are involved, no single local organization may have the authority to implement mitigation measures outside its own area. Or, it may be a special agency with powers too limited to carry out mitigation projects. Therefore, this situation may require an interjurisdictional authority with powers for implementing mitigation measures. Although the local agency executes the mitigating actions, the EPA has the ultimate responsibility to make sure that appropriate measures are adopted.

This is done by monitoring the planning process. Environmental Assessment in the Planning Process All planning, even water quality planning, has similar events. WQM and facilities planning differ primarily in subject scope, level of detail, and regulatory requirements. Environmental inputs are dealt with throughout the planning process.

In facili planning, perhaps even before the advisoi group is formed, it is important to discuss potential impacts at the preapplication conference. Activity at this point shows local interest, and starts planners thinkir about impacts and mitigation measures. Early in the planning process, goals are established and data is collected. Advisory groups can consult wit their constituents, and communicate the values and opinions of the public to the planners.

Frequent news releases about environmental aspects can interest the community in water projects, and establisn on-going support. Fact sheets about programs or projects can be released to U] public at the beginning of the process. These sheets can be used to point out environmental issues. Advisory groups can be actively involved in developing and evaluating alternatives. Subcommittees can be formed to study various aspects, especially from the perspective of the local interests. Resource specialists such as soil conservationists cer be invited to contribute their expertise to advisory group discussions.

In facilities planning, the grantee is required to help identify these parties. This is also a time for assessing mitigation measures. Advisory group members and the public can take tours of existing facilities to observe mitigation techniques in operatic Informational meetings are especially appropriate for the plan selection, and th needs assessment early in the process.

They present an opportunity to make environmental tradeoffs known to the public, and to hold planners accountable for their analyses. Advisory group members should encourage planners to present data and findings in ways that are relevant to the audience. Charts and pie graphs may appeal to the general public, while tables of data are more appropriate for technicians. Tradeoffs should be explained in common terms, such as the effect of the project on the local tax rate, or the project compared with other expenditures such as a new school.

It must be made easy for people to compare proposals and tradeoffs. The review of final plans and specifications offer additional opportunities for the consideration of environmental issues.

In facilities planning, impact mitigation can be made a condition for design and construction grants. The North Central Texas Council of Governments in the Dallas-Fort Worth area is incorporating water quality into comprehensive planning and development for the region.

It consolidates input from several technical committees into a Preferred Regional Development Program. This program integrates five areas: transportation, sewage, water supply, housing, and land use. Place in the Planning Process Some persons think that the environmental assessment should be limited to the latter part of the planning process, and handled as a task apart from other planning functions.

This can result in plans that overlook environmental issues, and cause subsequent implementation problems. The EPA inadvertently encourages this practice, requiring the submission of the environmental information document separate from the facilities plan. Proper water quality planning is a back-and-forth process. The assessment of current and future situations goes into the development of alternative plans.

The evaluation of these alternatives, in turn, often leads to further studies of the future, and so on. Similarly, the environmental assessment proceeds concurrently with all steps in the planning process. To the EPA it means just about everything. Environmental assessments in water quality planning, therefore, evaluate jobs, housing, and aesthetics, as well as water quality, animals, and other natural resources.

In water quality planning, environmental factors are as important as monetary costs. Environmental information documents are prepared for all facilities plans. Impact statements are done only if projects are controversial, are expected to have significant impacts, or other circumstances warrant additional studies. Water Quality Management planning is also subject to the environmental assessment process, but WQM plans seldom need an impact statement.

Programs have different regulations, and different terms describe the assessment steps. However, the environmental assessment involves the same basic elements: description of current and future environments; evaluation of alternative plans; discussion of environmental consequences; description of measures to mitigate or minimize adverse effects.

Impacts can be either beneficial positive or harmful negative. They also are classified as either primary or secondary, terms which do not reflect their importance, but show their relationships to actions.

Primary impacts are due directly to a project or program. Secondary effects, such as growth, are induced or caused indirectly by a project. Successful projects require the mitigation of adverse impacts.

The choice of mitigation measures depends upon technique availability, implementation feasibility, and enforcement responsibility. Secondary impacts are generally more difficult to mitigate. WQM and facilities planning programs have different specific requirements, but they have the same basic planning elements. Both involve: identifying problems; establishing goals and objectives; compiling data; developing and evaluating alternatives; selecting a plan; implementing and revising the plan.

Advisory groups can ensure that environmental aspects are considered throughout the planning process. Meetings, public hearings, fact sheets, project reviews, and other occasions are opportunities for citizen involvement.

Maximum information exchange between the planners and the public requires different kinds of communication approaches for the diverse public and discussions in common terms. Washington, DC- U. It SUpports a small year-round population of about residents. During the summer, the resident population increases to 1,, and on a typical summer day another 1, - 2, tourists may be visiting the island.

Development on the island has been concentrated in the Old Harbor area. Hotels, inns, rooming houses, restaurants, and shops are clustered along the old harborfront.

To the northwest, more recent development has taken place in the New Harbor area. The remainder of the island is largely open heath, pasture, numerous ponds, and inland wetlands. In , the island adopted a comprehensive development plan. The goals and policies outlined in the plan include protecting environmentally sensitive lands and natural areas, preserving the rural New England character of the island, and confining development to lands with soils suitable for septic tanks.

In , the township updated its zoning ordinance to conform with the new plan, and to ensure the protection of wetlands, ponds, and streams. New construction, which was increasing at the time, placed additional strain on the capacity of the soils. As a result, many onsite systems failed, creating a situation that was aesthetically displeasing to the residents. In the s, the Governments of the OECS recognized the positive role that EIA can play in the planning process in their member states, and took positive steps to make the process functional.

This included the drafting of model legislation which was subsequently adapted and enacted in the individual member states and territories of the OECS, and arranging training for public servants who would be responsible for implementing the legislation. The Caribbean Development Bank also played a key role in this effort, incorporating environmental considerations into their loan approval process fairly early and arranging training courses in EIA for all of their Borrowing Member Countries in Due to all these efforts, EIA became established in the OECS by the late s, as a necessary tool for planning and approval of large and complex projects.

This Handbook addresses that need. In it, the Authors share their significant experience with the EIA Process, so that other Practitioners may gain from their insights. If you can, please consider supporting us with a regular amount each month.