Impact Assessment

Practical Solutions to Recurrent Problems and Contemporary Challenges

David P. Lawrence

• Publisher: Wiley
• Year: 2013
• Print ISBN: 9781118097373
• eBook ISBN: 9781118678732
• Edition: 2
• Topic: Technology & Engineering
• Subtopic: Environmental Management
• Index: Technology & Engineering

Offers solutions and best practices to respond to recurrent problems and contemporary challenges in the field

Since the publication of the first edition of Environmental Impact Assessment in 2003, both the practice and theory of impact assessment have changed substantially. Not only has the field been subject to a great deal of new regulations and guidelines, it has also evolved tremendously, with a greater emphasis on strategic environmental, sustainability, and human health impact assessments. Moreover, there is a greater call for impact assessments from a global perspective. This Second Edition, now titled Impact Assessment to reflect its broader scope and the breadth of these many changes, offers students and practitioners a current guide to today's impact assessment practice.

Impact Assessment begins with an introduction and then a chapter reviewing conventional approaches to the field. Next, the book is organized around recurrent problems and contemporary challenges in impact assessment process design and management, enabling readers to quickly find the material they need to solve tough problems, including:

• How to make impact assessments more influential, rigorous, rational, substantive, practical, democratic, collaborative, ethical, and adaptive
• How each problem and challenge-reducing process would operate at the regulatory and applied levels
• How each problem can be approached for different impact assessment types—sustainability assessment, strategic environmental assessment, project-level EIA, social impact assessment, ecological impact assessment, and health impact assessment
• How to link and combine impact assessment processes to operate in situations with multiple overlapping problems, challenges, and impact assessment types
• How to connect and combine impact assessment processes

Each chapter first addresses the topic with current theory and then demonstrates how that theory is applied, presenting requirements, guidelines, and best practices. Summaries at the end of each chapter provide a handy tool for structuring the design and evaluation of impact assessment processes and documents. Readers will find analyses and new case studies that address such issues as multi-jurisdictional impact assessment, climate change, cumulative effects assessment, follow-up, capacity building, interpreting significance, and the siting of major industrial and waste facilities.

Reflecting current theory and standards of practice, Impact Assessment is appropriate for both students and practitioners in the field, enabling them to confidently respond to a myriad of new challenges in the field.

Chapter 1

Introduction

1.1 Highlights

This book is intended to enhance impact assessment (IA) practice. It utilizes IA process design and management choices to provide practical solutions to IA practitioners for major, recurrent problems and contemporary challenges encountered in daily IA practice.

• In Section 1.2 we present a scenario that highlights the problems and challenges. The scenario illustrates how a failure to adequately anticipate and respond to varying perspectives and challenges can contribute to the collapse of a seemingly well-designed and managed IA process.
• In Section 1.3 we “go back to the fundamentals.” We use an IA definition and definitions of various IA types—environmental impact assessment (EIA), ecological impact assessment (EcIA), social impact assessment (SIA), health impact assessment (HIA), strategic environmental assessment (SEA), and sustainability assessment (SA)—to identify implications for overall IA process management. We also describe the current “state-of-the-art” of IA process management themes and issues. These analyses illustrate the widespread nature of the recurrent problems and contemporary challenges in IA theory and practice.
• In Section 1.4 we frame the IA process and identify IA regulatory and applied design choices as the bases for building a strategy. We explain why the IA process in general, and alternative IA processes and process types and variations, in particular, are essential to the effort.
• In Section 1.5 we present a strategy for facilitating more effective IA process management.
• In Section 1.6 we suggest how IA stakeholders could use this book.
• In Section 1.7 we highlight the major themes and conclusions.

1.2 A “Not so Hypothetical” Scenario

1.2.1 Brave Beginnings

A private proponent decides to establish a new hazardous waste treatment facility. It realizes that there will be numerous licensing requirements including the preparation and approval of an EIA (a type of IA applied to projects). Accordingly, a consulting team is hired to prepare the EIA documentation and to ensure that all approval requirements are satisfied. A preliminary design is prepared for a “state-of-the-art” facility. An overview of available properties is conducted. A site is selected in a general industrial park a couple of miles outside a medium-sized community. An option is taken out on the property. Local community officials express a willingness to accept the facility because of the tax revenue to be generated and a promise to share a portion of the facility revenues with the local community. Two municipal councilors express reservations because of a fear that the facility might stigmatize the community. They also question whether the proposal might be premature on the grounds that need and alternatives have not been addressed at higher decision-making levels.

The EIA process has a promising beginning. A core study team is assembled with ample EIA and regulatory approval experience. The project manager, a civil engineer, is experienced in the design, approval, and construction of similar projects. The EIA team's experience and expertise derive from a working familiarity with pertinent EIA requirements and guidelines, and the experience acquired from several similar projects.

A variety of engineering and environmental specialists, together with an expert in public participation, are added to the team. A preliminary study design is prepared. Initial scoping sessions are conducted with government officials to identify regulatory requirements, concerns, and priorities. An initial set of public meetings and open houses is convened to identify public concerns and preferences. The study program is modified to accommodate public and agency concerns. The EIA is divided into a clearly defined sequence of steps. Provision is made for public and agency input into each step.

The focus, in the early months of the process, is on establishing a sound environmental baseline and on refining facility characteristics. Several mitigation options are screened and compared in the ongoing effort to prevent and ameliorate adverse impacts. Initial background papers are prepared documenting baseline conditions, study methodology, the analysis of alternatives, and preliminary impact predictions. Impact predictions are then refined, and impact significance ratings are determined, for both individual and cumulative impacts. A concerted effort is made to mitigate potentially significant, adverse impacts. In a few cases, this necessitates comparing mitigation options. These various analyses are consolidated first in working and background papers and then in a draft impact statement. Summary reports are prepared for each document. Documents are circulated for initial agency comment and are used as the basis for discussions and presentations at public meetings and open houses. All comments and suggestions are recorded. Responses are provided to each comment received including a detailing of how and where the comments are addressed in the EIA documentation.

1.2.2 Cracks in the Foundation

Public opposition begins to mount during this period. Initially, this opposition comes from individuals. It is not long before a local opposition group is formed. Local and then regional environmental organizations quickly join the fray. The local community groups are concerned about accidents and long-term potential human health effects, possible declining property values, and community stigma. They strongly criticize the limited, closed, and informal procedure adopted for selecting the preferred site. The environmental groups question the need for the facility, arguing that it is “old technology” that should be superseded by waste reduction, reuse, and recycling initiatives. They challenge the “growth ethic” inherent in the predicted usage of the facility, express concerns about possible climate change and cumulative effects from the facility and other industrial activities in the area, and argue that the proposed facility undermines the cause of environmental sustainability.

Several faculty members from the local university also voice their opposition. They focus their comments on the scientific validity of the impact predictions. They especially point to the failure to use control communities, the lack of peer review, the excessively descriptive analysis, the questionable statistical analyses, the crude models employed, and the short duration of the baseline studies. They stress that the studies fail to adequately address uncertainties, low probability–high consequence risks, and perceived risks. They argue that effects are defined too narrowly, noting that the socioeconomic effects analysis focuses on and overestimates short-term benefits, while addressing only superficially adverse direct and indirect ecological and socioeconomic impacts. They question the absence of a policy framework, the lack of waste management strategy for the region, the absence of a coherent approach to climate change impacts, and the failure to evaluate need and alternatives to the project. They are especially critical because of the lack of a comprehensive impact management strategy. They also wonder whether the net contribution of the facility to environmental sustainability will be positive or negative. The opposition to the facility culminates in a raucous public meeting.

Many members of the public attending the meeting stress that public involvement in the process has been at best “tokenism” and at worst “manipulation.” Considerable frustration is expressed about what is seen as a loss of community control. Many participants argue that the process is neither open nor fair. They complain that the major decisions (i.e., need, alternatives to the project, alternative locations) were already determined before the EIA process was initiated. They suggest that it is unfair to locate such a facility in an area, which generates such a small proportion of the waste, has several similar facilities, and which is social and economically disadvantaged. Frequent reference is made to the mixed, “track record” of the proponent in other communities. The EIA process is described as unfair, especially giving the overwhelming resource advantage of the proponent and the lack of capacity of local groups and communities to effectively participate in the IA process. Both the municipality and the state are criticized for failing to have in place waste management and sustainability strategies. Such strategies, it is argued, would have provided a policy and program context for evaluating the proposed project. The EIA documents are criticized for lacking a broader planning perspective. The process is criticized for failing to adequately engage senior governments. Several municipal councilors soon reconsider their initial support for the facility.

Several potential participants decide that the EIA process is pointless. Some environmental groups argue that the EIA procedures are a wasteful distraction, with little, if any, environmental benefit. They decide either to focus on direct action against the project or to focus their limited resources on other environmental causes, where they believe they can make a difference. Many local individuals fail to become involved because of the resource disparity favoring the proponent and the perception that the major decisions have already been made. The local community groups are of mixed minds concerning whether it is better to participate in the process and risk being “co-opted” or oppose the project outside the process and risk being even further “marginalized” from decision making. Several academics, with potentially valuable knowledge, decide to bypass the process on the grounds that the data generated by the process is of no scientific value and of negligible utility in predicting or managing environmental changes. They also assert that the process is biased, subjective, and a waste of resources.

It becomes increasingly evident that there is a major disconnect between the proponent/EIA team and the public. The study team emphasizes the limited likelihood of an accident or spill. The public focuses on the severity of consequences if an accident or spill occurs. The team asserts that the scale and duration of impacts will be very limited. The public argues that the significance of ecological and community-related impacts will be high. The team talks in terms of project-related impacts. The public concentrates on the cumulative ecosystem and community impacts from the project and from other projects and activities. The team points to significant waste management benefits and limited project-related impacts. The public questions whether the net environmental contribution will be positive or negative. The team stresses the many opportunities for public involvement. The public maintains that its decision-making role is negligible. The team demonstrates its compliance with environmental requirements. The public asserts that the project is unacceptable to the community, regardless of regulatory compliance. The team seeks public input into facility design and management options. The public focuses on whether the facility is necessary, whether there are better ways to reduce and manage the wastes, and whether other facility locations would be more suitable.

This pattern of “talking past each other” leads to considerable frustration on both sides. Both sides redouble their efforts to get their points across while expressing consternation that they are not being heard. An attitude of mutual contempt becomes increasingly evident. The proponent and the study team conclude that they have “done their bit” by informing and involving the public. They decide that offering up further opportunities will only “ramp up” the intensity of opposition. Many members of the public decide that continuing to attend “token” public participation events only legitimizes a “tone deaf process” impervious to genuine public involvement. Initial agency reactions to the EIA documents are mixed at best.

Some reviewers have difficulty in determining whether specific regulatory requirements and policies have been explicitly addressed, as they work their way through the lengthy documents. Other reviewers question the clarity of the methodology, challenge the methods or data sources used, and assert that the criteria and indicators selected for predicting impacts are inappropriate for the setting. Some also argue that the methods have been misapplied or suggest that conclusions are insufficiently substantiated. Several reviewers are troubled by unexplained format and methodological inconsistencies among disciplinary analyses, and by the failure to systematically address interconnections among disciplines, climate change, and cumulative effects. The EIA, they point out, is essentially a compilation of independently prepared analyses.

The alternatives analysis becomes a focal point of criticism. Several reviewers argue that a wider range of alternatives should have been considered, criteria are not explicitly defined or consistently applied, criteria are not ranked, and sensitivity analyses have not been undertaken to explore the implications of alternative criteria rankings and varying interpretations of mitigation potential and the implications of uncertainty. The superficial and arbitrary approach to interpreting impact significance also is widely condemned. Some reviewers, who could make a worthwhile contribution to the process, have little to offer. EIA review, they note, is a largely secondary function of their agency. And yet, they assert, it absorbs far too much valuable time and resources. They too see EIA requirements and procedures as of little substantive value to either agency decision making or to environmental sustainability.

Substantial document modifications are made to address public and agency concerns and preferences. However, it is apparent that document modifications alone will not be sufficient to quell the tide of opposition that is building against the facility.

1.2.3 Hasty Repairs

The proponent decides, in the face of this mounting opposition, to retrench and reconsider how best to proceed. A community advisory committee is established to ensure the ongoing involvement of all affected interests. A community conciliator, acceptable to all parties, is hired to chair the committee. Funding is provided to the committee to hire specialists to peer review all the major technical analyses. A separate subcommittee is established to formulate an impact management and local benefits strategy. The strategy is to ensure a greater level of local participation and control in facility operations, management, monitoring, and contingency planning. It also is to formulate local benefits and compensation policies and procedures for both local residents and for the overall community. A parallel government advisory committee is established to better coordinate regulatory interactions.

1.2.4 Too Little Too Late

The costs and the duration of the process have greatly increased—to the considerable exasperation of the proponent. The reformulated approach has some success in addressing many of the technical, scientific, and community control concerns. Broader environmental sustainability and social equity concerns are largely beyond the committee's mandate. Several options advanced by facility opponents are not addressed on the grounds that they are impractical or beyond the control of the proponent. The negative perceptions of the proponent, the facility, and the EIA process are only slightly ameliorated by these efforts. Some environmental and community groups either refuse to participate in the modified process or opt out when it becomes evident that the committee agenda will be largely confined to refinements to technical analyses and to impact management. Several municipal councilors come to the conclusion that the likelihood of a satisfactory middle ground is remote and decide to add their voices to those of the facility opponents. More parties withdraw from the community advisory committee under a barrage of criticism from the groups they ostensibly represent.

Demonstrations, media interviews, and e-mail and letter campaigns by community and environmental groups further contribute to the momentum shift in political and public opinion against the project. The proponent attempts, behind the scene, to exert direct political pressure on local and senior government officials and on elected representatives. These contacts are made public, further undermining the credibility of both the proponent and the EIA process.

It is increasingly evident that it is virtually impossible to reverse the momentum that has built up against the facility. Faced with the prospect of continued intense local opposition and protracted legal battles, the proponent decides that the costs of proceeding are simply too great and the likelihood of project approval is too low. The application is withdrawn and the proponent decides that it will concentrate instead on upgrading and expanding existing facilities in other communities.

1.2.5 Recurrent Problems and Contemporary Challenges

The scenario illustrates a range of recurrent problems and contemporary challenges that are broadly evident in IA practice.

With regard to the recurrent problem of decision-making influence:

• The proponent and the government (at all levels) failed to see the relevance of strategic level decision making.
• Some environmental groups chose not to participate because they saw the IA process as lacking in environmental substance and, the...

Table of contents

• Cover
• Title Page
• Copyright
• Dedication
• Preface
• Chapter 1: Introduction
• Chapter 2: Conventional IA Processes
• Chapter 3: How to Make IAs More Influential
• Chapter 4: How to Make IAs More Rigorous
• Chapter 5: How to Make IAs More Rational
• Chapter 6: How to Make IAs More Substantive
• Chapter 7: How to Make IAs More Practical
• Chapter 8: How to Make IAs More Democratic
• Chapter 9: How to Make IAs More Collaborative
• Chapter 10: How to Make IAs More Ethical
• Chapter 11: How to Make IAs More Adaptable
• Chapter 12: How to Connect and Combine IA Processes
• References
• Index